Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Digital speakers

The article on Digital speakers seems to have only one reference, and most of the material in the article is not reflected by the referenced article (and some of the original research also seems factually wrong, or at the very least imprecise, please see the "Original research?" section of Talk:Digital speakers Arve (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The Universe [...] including yourself

In this talk on the Universe page, it has been suggested that mentioning yourself as part of the Universe is Original Research. I find this completion to be likely in the category of the statement "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed. Wikipedia:NOR

Should I start invoking explicit scientific research that any humans are part of the Universe?

Thank you, Extremind (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It clearly wouldn't be OR within the normal meanings of "yourself" and "universe" - as you say, it would be a statement of the obvious and universally (no pun intended) accepted. However, that's not really the question at hand here. Editors are questioning the appropriateness of making the point in an astronomical article, which is a different issue and not really one for this noticeboard. (And if the point shouldn't be made in the article, then whether or not it is OR is just a distraction.) Barnabypage (talk) 06:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the OR comment was a reference to your talk page disquisition on spirituality. It was not the best "WP:XYZ" link to throw in at that point. Probably WP:FORUM would have been more relevant. It was clear that you wanted to make some New Agey point that we are all "at one with the universe", which is not relevant to the topic of the article, which is about the cosmologocal concept of "the universe", not about the meraning of the word "universality". Paul B (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

There are some editors at Wikipedia whose existence in the universe (or at least the known universe) is debatable. So, yes, it is OR. Zero^talk 12:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Islamophobic incidents

Do any of the 38 sources I removed from Islamophobic incidents actually say the incidents were 'Islamophobic'? If they don't, then why does Roscelese (talk · contribs · count) keep reverting their removal? If a source doesn't say the incident is 'Islamophobic', then how do we know it is? Making it original research/WP:SYN.

Similarly, the same user reverted my edits to British_debate_over_veils#Accusations_of_Islamophobia, a bullet list where only 3 of the 7 bullets are actually accusations of Islamophobia. With "Don't change the meaning to something completely different because you personally disagree with a term"; the second I got no edit summary as the user abused rollback (one of many times), the second I got "nonsensical".

The user only responds with ad hominem accusations, instead of responding to the issue at hand.--Loomspicker (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

"Islamophobic," "anti-Muslim," "hateful against Muslims," "demonizing of Muslims," etc. are synonyms. We aren't going to create a separate list for every synonym to accommodate this user's personal dislike of a word in mainstream discourse. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

When such terms are used, then it is islamophobia. OR only comes in if the motivation for an attack is unknown or something else. TFD (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is greatly exacerbated by the fact that the topic itself is apparently just an indiscriminate collection of newsbites. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Although it looks like common sense has taken hold and it has been redirected to a more encyclopedic approach to the subject [[1]]. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem wasn't that the motives were unknown, but that Loomspicker has a personal hangup about the use of the word "Islamophobic" as a synonym for "anti-Muslim", which is excellently documented in much of the content he removed. I've also reverted the "merge" because, well, it wasn't a merge; the user simply deleted the content and is now edit-warring to keep it deleted without consensus, unfortunately. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Morganucodon's extratarsal spur

In File:Morganucodon.jpg, FunkMonk recently replaced an older reconstruction of the early mammal Morganucodon, visible here, with the following image:

A difference from the previous version is the spur above the left hind foot, which I argue is OR. The only justification for including the spur seems to be that Morganucodon, a morganucodont, is fairly closely related to the later docodont Castorocauda, in which the spur is clearly visible in a fossil. While this does provide some reason to suspect that that Morganucodon had the spur, incorporating this suspicion in an image used in encyclopedia articles goes beyond the published evidence to an unacceptable extent. The spur appeared at some point in the evolution of mammals and that point might as well have been between the morganucodonts and the subsequently-evolved docodonts.

The matter is complicated by the fact that, via a principle known as phylogenetic bracketing, the phylogenetic relations between Castorocauda and later mammals that exhibit the spur make it likely that it was present not only on all docodonts but also on the members of other orders, including the eutriconodonts and the multituberculates. It became, in time, rather common. These considerations do not apply to the morganucodonts, however, which lived earlier. There has to be a first group in which the spur appeared, and this may well have been the docodonts, not the morganucodonts or a prior group. To suppose otherwise is OR.

The position may change. The reason scientists are unwilling to attribute the spur to the Morganucodon foot is that no known hind foot from this genus is well-enough preserved for the matter to be settled. Tomorrow, a Morganucodon foot showing the spur clearly may be announced. For today, however, the animal should not be depicted with the spur.

FunkMonk and I have discussed the matter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review#Morganucodon's extratarsal spur is unsourced. Peter Brown (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Since you have a book from a university press suggesting the spur, I would think that the solution is to discuss the hypothesis in the article text, making it clear that this is a new theory and not accepted. A picture does not matter so much. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What book? In Pursuit of Early Mammals excludes Morganucodonta, including Morganucodon, from the group of mammals with the spur. I know of no writer who promotes a competing hypothesis. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review I produce a cladogram, drawn directly from the book, which shows Morganucodonta outside of the group with the spur.

It would be wonderful if readers, especially adults, gave priority to the text and regarded pictures as an afterthought. Unfortunately, things often don't work that way. Peter Brown (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You should link the discussion much earlier, so people can see for themselves, before presenting your own view. You fail to mention that I showed you a paper which does not exclude a spur. So it is basically your paper against mine, so both ways go. I think taking it all the way here is a waste of people's time. The paper I mentioned says: "Presence of the extratarsal spur in morganucodontans (Jenkins and Parring−ton 1976) has not been demonstrated as yet since the tarsals are incompletely known in this group." http://www.app.pan.pl/article/item/app51-001.html But since they are so close to a group that is also inferred to have spurs, we can neither exclude it or include it, since there is no evidence for either position. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I said, above, that the fossil record was currently inadequate; that what is known today does not settle the matter. That's also what your paper says, is it not? I do not see that the papers are in any conflict. I also said, above, that Morganucodon and Castorocauda were closely related, which I think is pretty much what you mean by calling them "close to a group". I do not agree with Itsmejudith that "A picture does not matter so much", but my bringing the matter here provided the opportunity for our differing views to be aired. I hope that other editors weigh in on the matter. Peter Brown (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If you agree it is unknown in morganucodonts, but present in the closest clades, what is the problem then? Where does the "original research" come in? Nothing other than one arbitrary cladogram based on nothing (no complete limb elements known for the group) argues against the presence of the spur. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It is original research to go beyond Hurum and all other reliable sources to affirm that Morganucodon had a tarsal spur. I think that our basic disagreement is whether, by adding the spur to the previous version of File:Morganucodon.jpg, you made such an affirmation. We're not going to agree on the matter, but that's how original research is relevent. Peter Brown (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Original research would be if I gave it a forked tail or something completely speculative like that. But spurs are present in the closest relatives of the group, so it is not comparable, and specifically not ruled out by the paper I cited. The fossils and papers leave two possible choices, choosing one for this is not original research. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Dongan Charter

There is an editor at Dongan Charter, who first wanted to change the wording "Western hemisphere" to "Americas", I reverted based on original research and the fact that it was his own POV, that the source itself says Western Hemisphere and therefore we can't substitute Americas. In response he/she has decided that removing the ENTIRE sentence and source is appropriate because the source itself is wrong because, in his/her own words- "Liverpool is two degrees" in the Western Hemisphere. I reverted again based on NOR and NPOV, a source must be used as it is intended at face value unless another source can show it is incorrect factually, he cant just say "Liverpool is west" of the Prime Meridian and therefore in the Western Hemisphere and of course Liverpool's charter is an older continuously in use charter (which I don't know that all to be true, but what I do know is when people say Western Hemisphere, they don't mean western England or Ireland or Portugal).Camelbinky (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If a source uses "Western Hemisphere" inaccurately, should that inaccuracy be repeated here? Peter James (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

We don't correct reliable sources unless we have another source that proves it wrong.Camelbinky (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for the assertion that "when people say Western Hemisphere, they don't mean western England or Ireland or Portugal"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as how that's my statement in a talk page, I don't have to source it. I'm talking about wording our article to reflect what the writer of the reliable source actually said. Do you have a source that says we can replace the phrase Western Hemisphere with Americas whenever someone uses Western Hemisphere in their publication, and some editor on Wikipedia personally believes that Americas is "correct" and the source not? Oh, wait... that's original research...Camelbinky (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the source is 'reliable' even when you know that it is wrong? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking into this further, I'd say that the real problem here is that the phrase 'Western Hemisphere' is ambiguous - geographically, Liverpool (which has a 1207 charter [2])is in the Western Hemisphere, though it may not always be considered to be politically. If we assume that by 'Western Hemisphere' it means 'the Americas' then there is nothing wrong with clearing up the ambiguity - but if making this assumption is WP:OR (which might be correct), then we can't use the source, because we can't decide for ourselves what it actually means, and it is easily verifiable that under one possible interpretation (the 'geographical' one), it is simply wrong. Remember, WP:OR forbids us from including our own conclusions in articles. It does not forbid us from coming to the conclusion that we can't use a source in the first place because it is too ambiguous to be of use. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The thing is that the article talks about charter in "continuous use", which while Liverpool's FIRST charter does precede Albany's, that charter was suspended at several points and not even the current one. As for it being "this source" as not reliable... there are several other sources that say the same thing, but none that claim a different city... so are all sources that claim this unreliable because a certain definition of Western Hemisphere conflicts with normal every day usage?Camelbinky (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Camel Binky, your unsourced assertions regarding what you consider "normal every day usage" are of no relevance to this discussion. As for sources, it would help if you would cite them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It is also probably worth looking at the source currently cited for the 'Western Hemisphere' claim:

"The oldest city charter in force in the United States is arguably the longest-running instrument of municipal government in the Western Hemisphere, according to Stefan Bielinski, author of Government by the People, a 64-page book written to mark Albany's Tricentennial in 1986." [3]

The source (Times Union, Albany) states that "arguably...according to Stefan Bielinski", the statement is true. It isn't asserting it as a fact. So Wikipedia can't, either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

What if we source directly to the book itself? And for the record, before anyone gets the idea this is some local amateur historian, Stefan Bielinski was the senior historian of the history office at the New York State Museum before retiring, and continues to as the director of the Colonial Albany Social History Project which is run by the New York State Museum. (Do I seriously need to source this or can you google it yourself?) I would say his credentials are relevant to his ability to be a reliable source, though the newspaper qualifies the statement, for whatever reasons- perhaps they had no way to copy check that statement themselves, we don't know their reason but I don't believe the fact they qualified the statement in such a way discredits him.Camelbinky (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the book? What does it say? The Times Union paragraph is actually a little unclear as to whether 'arguably' is their opinion, or Bielinski's. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have a copy some place, if you can give me the weekend to look for it and then find where this statement occurs in the book. Also have books written by Don Rittner and Jack McEneny that may have a similar statement we can source, as I believe both their credentials would make books by them reliable sources on the history of Albany (one an archealogist and historian, the other a state legislator and historian).Camelbinky (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether they are reliable sources for Albany. Nobody seems to be disputing anything regarding the Charter itself. It is the ambiguity of a claim regarding the 'Western Hemisphere' (and the apparently equivocal statement made) that is the problem. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to say that if these other historians have also used the term Western Hemisphere then that should be able to be used as references that Western Hemisphere is being used by multiple sources. We will simply have to see what the sources say since in the absence of any other sources that say a different city is the "oldest continuously chartered city in the Western Hemisphere" there hasn't been a source that conflicts with the one we have, it is simply that the current source is wishy-washy. Right now what is occurring is that an editor is using original research to say Liverpool is an older "continuously chartered city in the Western Hemisphere" and therefore this source MUST be incorrect, but I have yet to be given a source by said editor that shows Liverpool is claimed to have the title of older, or even a source that shows that Liverpool's current charter is older than Albany's; which it isn't and anyone who read the Liverpool article can see that so no I'm not providing a source for that tidbit here in a talk page, the burden can be on whoever disagrees with me to research this if you cant take my word for it.Camelbinky (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• [4] makes the same "possibly" statement (which should not be a problem with putting that in the article, we can continue to use "possibly"). And as far as a source to show that saying the Western Hemisphere when normally used refers to the Americas [5] is a source that says Boston is the oldest seaport in the Western Hemisphere; if the Western Hemisphere was being talked about as if it included England, Ireland, Portugal, and by extension western Africa as well, then obviously Boston couldn't possibly be what is claimed. Our own article on Massachusetts Supreme Court states that it is the oldest continuously operating appellate court in the Western Hemisphere. Is there now going to be a witch hunt by the same editor to "correct" sources everywhere on Wikipedia to reflect their belief that Western Hemisphere must be taken literally to mean the Prime Meridian? If so this page, and I assume others, should have their active editors informed now so they may speak up before this becomes a precedent.Camelbinky (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

[6] oldest continuous use synagogue in Western Hemisphere in Curacao (Dutch Antilles) in South America, even though there is a joke "Ireland is the only country to never kick out the Jews... because they never let them in" I am going out on a limb and say (yes without a source) that Ireland, England, Portugal, Spain, western France, somewhere in Europe west of the Prime Meridian there is a synagogue in continuous use older. Again- there has not been a source provided showing there's a charter in Liverpool or other city older than Albany's either, so my leap in assumptions is in the same vein of that leap that "obviously" there's one older in Europe. From this source [7]- "Spanish Town, founded in 1534, is the oldest continuously occupied city in the Western Hemisphere". Can we begin to agree that I may be right that when stating something is the "oldest" in the Western Hemisphere we mean the Americas? If so- why do we in Wikipedia have to change the wording of the source's claim from Western Hemisphere to Americas? Though I'm ok with changing to Americas if that's what keeps the statement instead of throwing out the statement. I just don't see why it needs to be changed if this does seem to be common usage.Camelbinky (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

[8] oldest continuous executive mansion in Western Hemisphere is in Puerto Rico. [9] the Harvard Gazette says Harvard University is the oldest corporation in the Western Hemisphere (by its formal incorporation name of "The President and Fellows of Harvard College", so don't get confused). Do I need to continue or will I now hear that the people at Harvard are incorrect and therefore this, and all the other sources are made not reliable because they use Western Hemisphere in a manner inconsistent with technical geography. We don't go by actual geographic definitions a lot of times, there's been debates in other noticeboards and this one regarding when it is appropriate to list certain countries that have portions technically a part of Europe and when not to. We cant go around being "geography Nazis" and ignore our sources.Camelbinky (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

According to Guiness Book of records Aberdeen Harbour Company is the oldest in the UK, Aberdeen is 2w. [10] at 1136. So that Harvard misusing the term. Wikipedia has to decide a consistent use of Western Hemisphere. My claim of Liverpool was simply to show how easy it is to produce a contender which provides a contender. In this case simply not mentioning either is probably best.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Because you say the Western Hemisphere is anything west of the prime meridian then every single source I mentioned is "wrong"... yet it seems in common language the Western Hemisphere is not generally considered to be everything west of the prime meridian as I've amply shown. You are being too technically to the point of disruptive behavior and "I cant hear you". User:AndyTheGrump asked me to provide sources for the assertion that Western Hemisphere is equivalent to the Americas. I have done so. I have asked you Kitchen Knife to provide sources that say XY (in Europe) is the oldest YZ in the Western Hemisphere. But you haven't/cant. All you have provided is original research and synthesis of "xy was found in yz date. therefore being older it invalidates that source". You cant use synthesis and OR in such a manner to disprove multiple sources like that.Camelbinky (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

As our own article shows, the term 'Western Hemisphere' is ambiguous. Not the ideal source clearly, though Princeton University apparently has no problem copying our article, presumably for the benefit of students. [11] The simple fact is that there are differing definitions of the term, making Bielinski's assertion itself ambiguous. Incidentally, if Bielinski's source says "arguably" (which as yet hasn't been determined), we should be using the same word, and ascribing the statement to him. "Possibly" doesn't mean "arguably". AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Direct quote-"the oldest city charter in force in the United States and arguably the longest running instrument of municipal government in the Western Hemisphere,". Can we agree that if we use "arguably" and attribute it to Bielinski then it is kosher?Camelbinky (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Is that from Bielinski's book? I can't see a problem with a direct quote if it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"common language the Western Hemisphere is not generally considered to be everything west of the prime meridian" - maybe if that common language is American. Peter James (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"Visitors to the Prime Meridian line, also known as the Greenwich Meridian line, are there because they want to stand with one foot in each of the eastern and western hemispheres."[12].--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Kitchen Knife, you go right ahead and change Massachusetts Supreme Court and all the other articles that say "Western Hemisphere". See how long before you are topic banned from doing it, I'm curious how long before you get your ass to AN/I.Camelbinky (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You have conclusively lost the argument, your now just blustering. I think you have failed to understand the principles of WikiPedia. I amazed you still allowed to edit.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The MSC claim is totally unreferenced. so removed.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

That personal attack would hurt me if it was formed in halfway legitimate English. Since you like things to be fixed, please allow me- "You have conclusively lost the argument, you're now just blustering. I think you have failed to understand the principles of Wikipedia. I am amazed you are still allowed to edit". And I'd throw in a "you ass" or "dipshit" at the end if I was doing it, since if you're going to insult me, you might as well make it more direct. But, hey, since you are a terrible editor and wont be around doing anything constructive I'll just ignore you and your misconception that I "lost" (User:AndyTheGrump seems to have shown a way I can indeed have the sentence). Your battleground perception that this is about "winning" and "losing" is disconcerting along with your insults. Please watch your tone. And don't forget to always end with- you ass.Camelbinky (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You have done very little but throw around ill informed parochial comments and ill disguise insults. Editors like you come on go.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Western hemisphere is the exact wording used in the source. The term has multiple meanings. According to some of those meanings the reliable source is absolutely correct correct. According to some of those meanings, it MAY NOT be (but is not guaranteed to be) While consensus could certainly choose to paraphrase differently, it is by definition WP:OR to attempt to prove the reliable source wrong. Technically yes, the western hemisphere includes small parts of europe. But unless you have a source specifically saying that "the oldest/bestest/whateverest Whatever" is actually in Portugal, Wales, or Ireland, etc you haven't actually shown that the reliable source is incorrect by ANY definition of the term western hemisphere. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

But I have shown that it is not reliable as the wording is ambiguous and could have one of several meanings.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Many words have multiple meanings, it doesn't mean people who use those words are not reliable sources. find a source actually contradicting the source, not using your own WP:OR and you may have a case. Even with the ambiguous wording, it doesn't mean it is wrong. For example, the US constitution is the oldest written constitution in the western hemisphere, because it is the oldest single document written constitution of any major country period. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You cannot consider as reliably any statement which is ambiguous.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Using OR to omit information

I think everyone would agree that editors can not add information that is based on OR to an article... but what about using OR to justify the removal or omission of information?

My understanding of the policy is that this would be OK. We are allowed to use editorial judgement in determining what an article talks about and what it does not talk about, and we are allowed to make OR based arguments on a talk page (within reason)... so if my OR based arguments to remove or omit some bit of information are convincing enough, the editors at the article can reach the editorial consensus judgement to remove or omit it. I would love to hear what others say on this question... Am I missing something? If so, what... and if not, is this something that we should note in the policy (or is it better left unsaid). Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Policy policy says "neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias." TFD (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That does not answer the question. Blueboar (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it does, insofar as it can be answered. I don't really understand your question fully, but you seem to be asking whether it is "OR" to leave out content from a reliable source if the discussion concludes that such content is erroneous, fringe or whatever. That's part of normal editorial judgement as a result of "critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately". If the analysis suggests that a particular claim is plain wrong, I see no reason why it should be retained. Paul B (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

But you cannot use "OR" in an attempt to denigrate statements in reliably published sources that are not deemed to contain mistakes (which are revealed as such through recourse to other reliably published sources).

Simply disagreeing with what is stated in RS and trying to exclude it from the article amounts to WP:IDONTLIKE IT.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree. It's not OR to spot an obvious mistake or glitch, or to note that a particular source is fringe compared to the mainstream view in the literature; it would be OR to conduct your own independent research, for example, and then argue that a reliable source should be omitted because of your findings. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the context. Often reliable sources do make simple mistakes, which sometimes can only be demonstrated by an element of SYN from other sources. I have experienced several instances in which the decision has been made to drop the clearly erroneous material. A while back I created articles on two rather obscure playwrights called Stanislaus Stange and Hugh Stanislaus Stange. It quickly became clear that many sources had the two writers hopelessly confused. I tried to work out from the sources when a play by one was being mistakenly attributed to the other, and just omitted the information that was clearly wrong. To have done otherwise would have been simply to add to the confusion by saying "X say HSS wrote this, but Y says SS wrote this", when there wasn't really any scholarly 'debate' or disagreement, just a bit of easily made (and relatively easily solved) confusion. After all, WP:IAR is a policy for a reason. Paul B (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

If for example one were editing an article on Herbert Hoover's presidency, it would be wrong to remove the Great Depression, because most if not all historians consider that to be the most significant occurrence. Neutrality says to "convey to the reader the information contained in [reliable sources] proportionately...." It would be disproportionate to omit it. Simple mistakes that occur in rs can be corrected by using subsequent sources that make different claims. TFD (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. The consensus was that since there is no requirement to put any particular piece of information in an article, the NOR policy does not apply to excluding information, only including information. Any requirement to include information would come from the NPOV policy, not this one.

There could be cases, especially in articles about places, where editors with local knowledge may be able to argue that some normally reliable source is just wrong on some fact of low importance, so the fact can just be dropped. For example, Google Maps might show that one can travel from point A to point B on Little Dirt Road, but several editors might report that the road is not continuous; there is a barn right in the middle of what Google Maps claims is the road about half way from point A to point B.

Somebody is sure to suggest that one can always find a reliable source to prove that the other reliable source is wrong. Not always, and in any case, it may be more expedient to rely on original research rather than trying to find additional source on some obscure point, and there is NO policy against doing so. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Accessing Google maps would not be OR, if it is considered RS (RS/N board, etc.).

While I can understand the case PaulB describes regarding an obscure topic and the need to coordinate sources in order to avoid mistating the facts, your assertion regarding the use of OR as an expedient appears to be clearly wrong, that is to say, in violation of the NOR policy.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

As Ubikwit stated, and User:Blueboar is well aware- it is not OR to use a map or drive down a road and describe what can be verified and seen by any individual who so wants to. User:Jc3s5h's example is faulty in that it has nothing to do with "Using OR to debunk an RS" because what he describes is not in fact using OR in the first place. Policy is quite clear that it would not be OR to describe "that house has a red door" because you drove to that house and you saw... it had a red door; that can be used to eliminate an otherwise RS that said "that house has a green door" and it is not a use of OR to do so because you driving to that house is something that is verifiable (and even better- true). The RS in this case is- the door. An RS does not have to be a published book, this seems to be a common misconception no matter how often Blueboar and others have to say so and we try to rewrite policy to make it clearer (can those that continue to hamper our ability to make policy clearer please stand up?).Camelbinky (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

To get to the matter at hand- NO do not ever remove information that is sourced to a reliable source unless you can prove that the source has the information wrong in some verifiable manner. It is no different than someone saying "I was with Lee Harvey Oswald on that day and I know he didn't do it, Im removing all sources because they are wrong and therefore now not reliable"... well, we cant verify your story, so THAT is OR. It comes down to whether or not, in some manner some person, some where, with or without money, with or without certain credentials can indeed verify that the information contained in a certain RS is wrong. Preferably an RS that says "XY is wrong" or has a statement that conflicts with the statement you are challenging. To simply say "RS source is not RS because 'everyone knows' that fact is not true" is not acceptable, is OR, and you cant do that.Camelbinky (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

NB: The current definition on the Wikipedia:No original research page is that the term Original Research "is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". Hchc2009 (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

NB: Something that is ambiguous cannot be reliable. So any statement from no matter who or where which is ambiguous cannot be considered reliable. It not of matter of saying the information is false but of saying it is not reliable and therefore not eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Camelbinky's statement "do not ever remove information that is sourced to a reliable source" is not in accord with the NOR policy, nor is it in accord with good writing. Information that is sourced to a reliable source can be removed for many reasons, so long as other editors concur. These reasons include

• original research indicates the source is wrong, for example, an editor builds a circuit described in a source and it doesn't behave as described,
• the information is boring,
• the article is too long and the information is less important than other material in the article.

In other words, since NOR does not mandate the inclusion of anything, it does not control the justification for removing information. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, are you drunk? "For example, an editor builds a circuit described in a source and it doesn't behave as described" hell no you can not do that and throw out a source! Seriously? First off, your experiment is not verifiable I can not theoretically go to your house to see that you succeeded in following the directions. Second- "the information is boring" OMFG are you seriously advocating "boring" as a reason to remove information?! Now, you need to be brought up on competence issues. "The information is less important than other material in the article" and "the article is too long"... that's when you make subpages!!!!! SERIOUSLY? I cant believe your post was not a joke. Your entire take on policy is laughable and don't you go around saying my statement is not in accord with NOR policy when clearly you don't know what OR is or when or what should be removed in an article. I am so scared you are out there editing.Camelbinky (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you think histrionics help your case? Zero^talk 07:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The circuit is verifiable. You build your own and test it. If you cannot do that you should perhaps not be editing the article in the first place. It seems you have an idea of what wikipedia should be and assume that the rules back you up, rather than reading the rules and understand what they are there to construct.Kitchen Knife (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

My answer to Blueboar's question. The only rule against removal of information is NPOV, which would be violated if the information served the purpose of balancing other information that is not removed. However, NOR is certainly relevant to the question. Law or not, editors who remove properly sourced information should justify the removal, so that the quality of the justification can be judged by other editors with an eye to achieving a consensus. Justifications of the form "I don't think this is right", or "I personally investigated this and it isn't correct" would be original research and shouldn't carry much weight. However "here is a more reliable source that tells a different story" would be lovely. Some basic logic like "he can't have done that because he died the year before [source for death date]" would also be fine if other editors agree, even though it is technically SYNTH. It is also fine to remove trivia, data excessively detailed for the encyclopedic style, or otherwise UNDUE information, subject to consensus as always. Removal of key information (such as removing "in Texas" from Dallas) doesn't violate any rules but is seriously bad editing practice. Zero^talk 07:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it OR to correct a photo caption that incorrectly states the contents of the picture in question?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This concerns a correction I made to the the article Six Day War. There are 2 photos in the article that make statements to the effect of they containing "Israeli children" when the photos also contain adult men and women (which I believe the average person will safely assume the adults there to be Israelies as well). As such, I made THIS edit correction, with an explanatory summary statement and left a message in the article's talk page HERE as well. My edit was reverted HERE by User:Irondome with the comment "Thats called OR. And you spelled "Israeli" incorrectly" (I don't really care how he wants to spell Israeli; that's not what I am objecting to here). The comment the editor left at the Talk Page can be seen HERE. And the 2 photos in question with their current (and objectionable) captions are these:

<<< "Israeli women and children in a bomb shelter at Kfar Maimon near the Egyptian border"
The above, I maintain, should read "Israelis in a bomb shelter at Kfar Maimon near the Egyptian border" (there is also an adult man in this photo)

<<< "Israeli children in a bomb shelter at Kibbutz Dan during the war."
The above, in my opinion, should read "Israelis in a bomb shelter at Kibbutz Dan during the war." (there are in fact at least 5 adults in this photo)

Now, I am perfectly aware the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a touchy issue for many. However, I bring no agenda here (as the reverting editor might be assuming) as I am neither Israeli nor Arab nor Palentinian nor Jew, nor from any other nation that supports either side. The one agenda I bring here is the Wikipedia agenda: WP:COMMON SENSE. So I ask, (1) did I err in correcting what appears to be an error clearer than the noonday sun, and (2) is it WP:OR (and how is it WP:OR?) to have made the change as the other editor has claimed? Mercy11 (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The captions are on the original photographs, but you appear to insist on modifying them for whatever facile reasoning you appear to be deploying. The context and subject matter of the pics are entirely clear. The subject matter is primarily children, and this was the intention of the original photographer. That there is a blokes head in the second picture is profoundly lame. I find it odd you bring it here without even bothering to inform me or discussing on the relevant talk page. Your attempted edits appear to be subtly attempting to change the contemporary reality of the photographs. You do not even use the term "civilians". I find that slightly troubling. Irondome (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me start by giving the Wikilawyer reply ... It would, technically, be OR to amend the captions. We don't actually know if the man in the first photo is an Israeli, or if the adults in the second photo are Israelis. Yes, it is highly likely that they are Israeli... but we don't actually know. If it is even remotely possible that they are non-Israelis (Americans?, Frenchmen?, Greeks?), who just happened to be in the shelters when the photo's were taken, then it would be OR for us to say that everyone in the photos are Israeli. We should not write text based on an assumption. All we know for sure is what the original source actually says... that the women and children in the first photo, and the children in the second photo are Israeli.

Now for the non-Wikilawyer reply... is it really necessary to amend the caption? Blueboar (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, User:Blueboar, that it is OR for the caption to include "Israeli" unless we know these people to be Israelis. I would also agree that that it is necessary to amend the existing caption because it is in violation of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR. Mercy11 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Inferring the intent of the photographer is highly problematic. Stating what is visible in a primary source does not ". A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge". It is a straightforward descriptive statement that anyone can be verified by any educated person that the photos contain more than children.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. And the original captions merely confirm that. The original captions are perfectly accurate and discriptive. Irondome (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, User:TheRedPenOfDoom, for the quote which I had almost forgetten about. The application here is unequivocal: These photo are primary sources (per WP:OR, Notes, Bullet 1) and as such only verifiable descriptive statements of facts can be drawn from them. Taking advantage of captions to distort the reality, such as calling the people in the pictures Israeli women and children when there are also men in those pictures, and calling the people in the pictures children when there are also adults in them is a violation of WP:OR via WP:PSTS. Mercy11 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you looking at different photos than I am? The photos I am looking at clearly contain male adults and not just children or just women and children as the original captions state. The deliberate elimination of a number of the individuals in the images to emphasize that we must "think of the children" is "descriptive" only in a POV manner. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we probably are, in the sense of our perception of them differs. I see mostly women and kids, with a few female and 2 male adults. Now I do not think I need a caption to guide me through that intellectual challenge. It is 2 pics of mostly women and children. No pov, just a reality. Also they are not "eliminated". Are they airbrushed over? Its blindingly bloody obvious. It is a picture, not a chapter of analysis. I do not see many edit wars over these captions. A stable consensus has been reached by the community, obviously in the captioning of these pics. Irondome (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

what is " blindingly bloody obvious" is that there is a POV push going on to paint pictures via captions that are not fully representative of what is objectively seen in those pictures. I dont see why we shouldnt put "Defenseless little babies cowering from the marauding hordes" as the caption. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that last remark speaks volumes for your obvious POV and mindset here. A gross distortion of the original captions. An attempt to rewrite the history of the photos and their context is seriously POV. Would you now like to rearrange the captions of any air raid shelter pics on WP now? Irondome (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not the one who is being a denialist about what is observably visible in those pictures. Go take em and crop out the men and then your captions of "women and children" will be what is visibly observable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you should drop the stick frankly. They are not "my" captions. They are the consensual captions of a highly contentious and well watched article. Do you not think that the experts -who reflect all POVs, yet work together- who helped create the article and are watching it would have pointed this up years ago if it was a real issue? At the moment the actual long term editors are arguing over the origins of the 6 day war, not this. It is trivial and you are being painfully literal about this. Actually quite anal. I suggest we continue this tomorrow, at the actual article talk page thread. In that way, experienced editors who have input into the article can contribute. Irondome (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there is no requirement whatsoever within Wikipedia guidelines or policies to use the same caption for an image as it was originally published with. Clearly, any caption must be NPOV, and not misleading, but beyond that, the exact wording is no more laid down by policy than any other article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump, I have not come across specific policy that head on addresses image caption either, which is probably why some editors feel free to write in whatever they desire (Please see my exposé further down dated 04:24, 3 October 2013) - even if it violates WP:NPOV. And this is precisely the reason we are here: because some editors seem to think that image captions are not "text", nor even an "extension" of text, and thus not subject to NPOV or OR policies. Mercy11 (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Irondome's position in this dispute defies common sense. If the image has an adult in it, plainly visible, I see nothing wrong with pointing that out in the caption. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Please re read the entire thread. I have no issue with an expanded desciption. I never have. What I object to is the bald term "Israelis", where there is a high probability (the kibbutz pic) of these being global Kibbutz volunteers. Many stayed on. That in itself would be innacurate. "Children and civilians In an Israeli air raid shelter" would suit me fine. "Israelis" would not. Anyway consensus on the talk page is what counts, where we can get a judgement from the most active editors on the article. Too much of a rush to the boards in this case methinks Irondome (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

How do you know the men are not in the military? claiming them to be "Civilians" is problematic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Someguy1221: yes, it does defy common sense. It is clearer than the noonday sun that there adults in the pictures, so I see there are only 2 reasonable options for the captions: we either say "children and adult Israelis" or we just say "Israelis" (Of course, I am assuming their nationalities can be WP:RS-verified) A non-sensical option is to cherry-pick and say "Israeli women and children" and "Israeli children" which is what Irondome is for whatever reason attempting to push for here. Mercy11 (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Irondome, I don't know where you are coming from, but no matter how much I can AGF, your arguments are close to trolling. The one who should drop the stick is you. It is obvious that saying women and children in a picture that has women,children and male adults not only is inaccurate, but it is also subtle emotional POV. Calling it An attempt to rewrite the history of the photos and their context is even weirder. If the problem is "Israelis" vs "kibbutz volunteers" or whatever, let's just write "People in a bomb shelter...": singling out women,children and men is after all useless and this way we avoid pigeonholing them as civilians/Israelis/whatever. --cyclopia^speak! 11:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There is actually only one "man" in the kibbutz picture. There appears to be two adolescent males, one in each pic. The vast majority of the subjects are children and women. In that sense the captions are essentially accurate. I find your allegations of trolling seriously OTT and bizarre. Obviously the captions are cunning Zionist propaganda, actually daring to take pics of kids and what appear to be carers in a bomb shelter and labelling them as such. It is my AGF capacities that are being strained here. However, I would accept "people" or "civilians". The IDF were not inducting 4 year olds in 1967 as far as I am aware. Irondome (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Cyclopia, I agree with you they are people and most reasonable editors would also judge they are in some sort of an underground shelter. That's where that needs to left at, instead of going thru a pick-and-choose of gender, ages, nationalities etc, none of which are entirely clear from the pics themselves anyway. Mercy11 (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't need pointing out whether the photos contain men, women or children. That's pretty self-evident. Can't we just go with "people in an Israeli bomb shelter at Kfar Maimon"? Barnabypage (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with that. Irondome (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Barnabypage, I agree with you the first photo should read, "people in an Israeli bomb shelter at Kfar Maimon". How about the second photo, perhaps likewise "people in a bomb shelter at Kibbutz Dan"? Mercy11 (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• While the consensus appears to be leaning to captions that read "People in a bomb shelter..." etc. (leaving out the nationality, gender, age group, and description of those in the pictures (civilians, military, kibbutz, etc)) I want to point out that this is not the first time this sort of situation has surface at Wikipedia, but the case does exemplify an ongoing problem at Wikipedia with photos, their filenames and their captions, and the problem hasn't gone away. As Wikipedia editors we cannot always go by what an image filename says or claims; in some cases WP:V is of far greater value than the fear of WP:OR.

Take, for example, THIS photo featured in Wikipedia's Sky article. The filename of the photo HERE states and claims it is a picture of the "Sky over Washington Monument". However, the photo does not contain the Washington monument at all to validate the photographer's/uploaders's filename claim. As such THIS edit was clearly necessary.

As a second example, check this situation: Suppose someone took a photo of a Rose, uploaded it using the description "A yellow daisy in springttime" in its filename and added it to the Daisy article with the caption A yellow daisy in the springttime. What are we reasonable editors to do? Now, it is obvious from my example that I am exaggerating for effect, since we all know the difference between a Rose and a Daisy, but when you consider that there are millions of plant species on Earth, it is then easy to see how some one photographer/uploader (either with good intentions or with malice) could shoot and upload a photo of a given plant species, use a filename description stating it is a picture of a different species, upload it with the incorrect filename and description information, and then add the picture with the misleading filename into an article to support an equally misleading caption. Again I ask, What are we reasonable editors to do? Well, the answer is: we correct the erroneous information. And we do that because WP:V is of far greater value that the fear of WP:OR. (BTW, this plant specie photographs issue has been a constant problem in the past and can be read more about HERE.)

So, reasonable editors just cannot blindly accept image filename entries --and oftentimes not even image description entries-- at face value; a certain amount of judgement has to be exercised before captions can be composed. Personally, the filename of a pic is only one of various leads I use to determine what a caption should read like. Other leads being the pic itself, its description, the date taken, the source of the photo, etc. A photo description, for example, is oftentimes only as credible as its source. In the case of these photos, they were apparently released by "Israel Defense Forces".

Yes, it is true that someone could consider it OR for another editor to state (in ref to the 2nd photo above) "Israelis in a bomb shelter at Kibbutz Dan during the war" if the filename reads "File:PikiWiki Israel 7250 Kids in the shelter kibbutz Dan.JPG", However, it would be equally OR (and doubly so) to claim it is "Israeli children in a bomb shelter at Kibbutz Dan during the war" when it is clearer than the noonday sun that such just isn't the case in that photo. Furthermore, it really isn't Wikipedia's problem that the photographer and/or uploader was sloppy in his choice of description and/or filename. Sloppiness of this type is just another manifestation of a WP:V violation.

Photo #1's caption above ("Israeli women and children in a bomb shelter at Kfar Maimon near the Egyptian border") also posed a problem. That caption was equally incorrect because it clearly contains a man. In fact, if anything, it was the original caption (and not my edit) that had an OR problem due to the way the caption read because it either (a)pretended for readers to believe there are no males in the picture (clearly insane), or (b)pretended readers to accept that somehow only the women and the children in the photo are Israelis but the man is not - something either (i)a case of "subtle emotional POV", as someone said above or (ii) a highly dubious claim (after all, what is a non-Israeli man doing in a shelter with Israeli women and children, and -more dubious yet- what is such non-Israeli man doing holding a -presumably- Israeli child?). And both of these pretentiousness are violations of policy. Perhaps something can be done in the future in a more global scale.

IAE and BTW, if consensus has indeed been reached, would a third party other than User:Irondome or myself go in the article and make the necessary edit changes. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

A thoughtful and detailed response. I myself was thinking of collecting the numerous examples on display on WP at this moment which are far worse than this. I share your concerns regarding photographic material on WP in this respect. However, I still do not see an issue with the captions. You still appear to be intimating it is unintentional POV (I am assuming GF here obviously). However, out of over perhaps 20 individuals, only 3 appear to be male. And at least one barely at puberty, and only one can be reasonably described as a man. It is hardly misleading to any reasonable viwer. If there was a picture of Charles DeGaulle with the Eiffel tower behind, would you say that it was in fact a picture of the Eiffel tower, just because 2 subjectas are in the picture? I would prefer "Women, children, and a man in an Israeli..." etc. Lets describe everything, within reason. It would fit. I am still unsure about this, and my stated preference now would be to take this to the talk page of 6 day war. This caption issue that you have raised appears not to have been picked up by the reg eds there. Therefore they do not see it as an issue, logically. I would feel more comfortable if we took this to talk, and engaged regular article eds for their input. I would prefer this process before agreeing to consensus here and now. It may take a week, but we will get a rounder consensus. we can arrange to move this thread to the 6DW talk page. Cheers Irondome (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't see that a caption must be exhaustively descriptive. To take an even more extreme example, if the picture depicted the Washington Monument with a blue sky behind, would we have to caption it "the Washington Monument and the sky"? The question is one of emphasis. In an article on Women and children in Israel or somesuch topic, it would be quite reasonable not to reference the few men in the caption, given that they don't dominate the picture. However, in a topic that's not specific to women and children, there is some implicit editorialising in focusing on their presence. Barnabypage (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Barnabypage, thanks for laying it out that way. This article is about the Six-Day War, and not about, say, Israeli women and children. As such, any captions that include gender, age, and nationality, etc, are not only WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:V, but also utterly distracting, wordy and unencyclopedic. Mercy11 (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

One might suspect a POV-pushing issue here from the fact that almost all the images in the article except maps are of Israelis, with an emphasis on Israeli civilians. According to the image description page, the image "Israeli women and children in a bomb shelter" is originally "התושבים במקלט במלחמת ששת הימים". My Hebrew ain't great, but I believe התושבים means "residents" not "women and children". There is also extra Hebrew text about women, children and yeshiva students, but it comes from a pikiwiki page and I don't know why that is a reliable source. The propagandistic nature of the images and their description in their Israeli sources is obvious. The rules about OR are not the only applicable rules; NPOV is also highly relevant. Just as we neutralize the language of polemic sources when we summarise them, we should neutralize image descriptions. Putting my wikilawyering hat on: Blueboar is usually right but in this case I think it is not true that strict interpretation of WP:NOR requires us to use the image description of the source. The point is that the source doesn't contain only the description, it also contains the image. Both the image and its description are information provided by the source and our task is to summarize all this information without adding information that is not presented by the source. The source containing the image with the man is providing the information that there was a man there and it is not OR to say so. Zero^talk 10:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Zero0000, you are probably right that some degree of POV-pushing might exist not only regarding these 2 photos that are the subject of this noticeboard debate, but POV-pushing regarding the entire article. The entire article might need to be escalated for closer scrutiny under NPOV. The opposing editor also seems unaware of WP:CONLIMITED. The sources of the images as well as their reliablity as unbiased sources need to be considered in this case. WP:NOR cannot be considered in isolation here. There appear to be multiple violations of multiple policies including WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Mercy11 (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a side note... If the original source for a photo (a book, newspaper, museum archive, etc.) has a caption accompanying the photo, it is not OR to repeat that caption in Wikipedia... but, if we do so we need to cite where the caption's text came from. And, if that original caption is biased or controversial, then we should also directly link the caption to the source through attribution in our caption. For example: saying something like: ... "This photograph (from the archives of the Luxembourg Museum of Belgian War Atrocities) is captioned: Innocent Luxembourger women and children cowering in a bomb shelter during the evil Belgian mortar attacks. <cite museum archives>" would pass WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. While clearly biased, such an attributed caption would indicate that the bias is that of the museum, and not our article. Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I would in fact suggest that the POV is in the attitudes of a couple of the editors here. I see no evidence of POV in the photographs or indeed the article. It has been worked over and debated enough. In the period leading up to the outbreak of war there were indeed feverish civil defence measures taken in Israel, and the very real fear of massed air attack by the large force of Egyptian TU4 jet bombers. Lurid threats were indeed made by Arab media against Israel, much of it of a repellent racist nature. I would suggest there are no Arab civilian photos simply because there was no existing photos taken. Any idea that women and children photographed in a bomb shelter is somehow propagandistic, while not taking into account the historical reality on the ground, I find disturbing, somewhat. Irondome (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Pictures have to be as neutral (WP:NPOV) as possible. We must also keep cold and avoid pictures that could generate emotions (that could harm WP:NPOV). In the current case : 1) 2 images in the articles about the 6 days wars providing the same information are useless. 1 would be enough 2) the fact that civilian citizens of Israel at the border were in danger need to be sources from WP:RS sources before these pictures are added; 3) I agree that reference of children should be removed in the caption. All the protagonists were at wars and all these nations have children. It is not neutral to make believe that only Israelis had children facing danger. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

We do not ever "correct" sources that have a POV to make them NPOV, we report what the sources say. NPOV means we don't add OUR POV, reliable sources do not need to be neutral. To try and use NPOV in such a manner is OR and is in complete disagreement with Community standards on what NPOV means. And usually is used by those that have a POV in one manner and wishes to "even" the playing field with a POV that is "more popular" with the literature, especially fringe ideas. Also- please note that the 6 Days War was fought in Israel, Egyptian Jordanian, and Syrian children were not in danger as they were not in the warzone. It's like saying American children in Kansas were in danger during WWII so we cant show Japanese hiding during bomb raids in Japan.Camelbinky (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably not a good idea anyone to note that the war was only fought in Israel, that only Israelis were in the war zone and make decisions on that basis. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably not a good idea anyone to not follow our policies on reporting only what our sources say and not to spin or change the wording to be neutral when the original source is not neutral and to try be politically correct and make decisions on that basis.Camelbinky (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

@Camelbinky : Six Days War was fought in the Sinai, in the Gaza Strip, in the West Bank, in East Jerusalem and in the Golan Heights. There were more than 1 million civilians in these zones. No significant battles took place on the Israeli territory but Israelis were of course threathened too. Your comparison with Kansas and Japan is not appropriate. The choice of the pictures that are chosen to illustrate an article should not hammer the WP:NPOV of these. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Camelbinky, this is a discussion on whether or not "It is OR to correct a photo caption that incorrectly states the contents of the picture in question" and, despite User:Pluto2012's comment above which may have put you in that path, it is not a discussion about "correcting [reliable] sources that have a POV [in them] to make them NPOV" as you are stating.

As for your "please note that the 6 Days War was fought in Israel;[sic] Egyptian,[sic] Jordanian, and Syrian children were not in danger as they were not in the warzone", what User:Zero0000 is saying above is that the POV-pushing in the entire Six-Day War article is also evident from the fact that all (18 or so) images included in the article are Israeli images. I have to agree that the entire article can be more even-sided imagewise since, it could include a more diverse group of images depicting, say, Jordanian commanders discussing plans for the war, Syrian military attacking Israel, Egyptian leaders signing a peace agreement, etc. To have only pictures depicting the Israeli side and then crowning that with pictures of Israeli children whose Wikipedia editor-chosen captions have been distorted to exclude the reality shown by the presence of adults in the pictures or distorted by changing what is in fact already included in the filename and description of the pictures in English (which in themsleves -at least in 1 of the 2 pictures in question- had already also been distorted (by the Wikipedia uploader) from what the original Hebrew said) are violations of WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V. Compare the non even-side collection of pictures included in this article with the much even-side collection of pictures included in Vietnam War and Falklands War, for example. It is not up to the (reliable) sources used to ensure that the article adheres to WP:NPOV; it is up to us Wikipedia editors. And that's why we are here discussing these picture captions. Mercy11 (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

And Pluto demonstrates the POV-pushing that is behind this idea of wanting to change the captions that COME WITH THE PHOTO BY THE PERSON WHO DID THE PHOTO, which is a source just as any other source, be it a book or not. Pluto- the "Gaza Strip" and Judaea and Samaria (or "West Bank" as you use in your POV-pushing language) ARE Israeli territory, regardless of who held the land illegally at the time. Those territories were awarded for the use of being a Jewish state by the League of Nations and the UN and the British govt when they divided the original Palestinian mandate in two, Transjordan for Arabs and the rest for Jews. The Arab nations conquered those territories in 1948. So having the war in those areas means the war was STILL in Israeli territory, the Sinai is the only place that was truly Egyptian (the Golan Heights didn't have any really permanent population). I have my POV, and you have yours. At least acknowledge yours. As for the photos- they are a source, the caption on them says one thing, it is not up to us to change the caption to be "neutral" or be less sympathetic to Israelis. And Mercy11, learn to use [sic] correctly, or else learn the English language, since Egyptian and Israel are not misspelled nor grammatically incorrect. Everyone- history is written by the victors, the sources used for any article are going to represent that if they are truly written from a NPOV Wikipedian point of view; the sources we use do not have to be NPOV nor do we have to give each "side" equal weight, if history represents itself one way, we dont "correct" it.Camelbinky (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think your comments serve any useful purpose. Rational editors who understand policy can of course decide whether a caption used by the IDF, Hamas, any source, needs to be amended. Editors could also use an original caption with attribution. It's up to editors to decide how best to reflect the information sources contain and comply with policy/guidelines. You aren't dealing with mindless nationalist drones and your assumption that the editors you are dealing with don't understand NPOV is misplaced and counterproductive. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Sean.hoyland. I won't speak for others but I think most editors here would agree with Camelbinky in that "We do not ever 'correct' sources that have a POV to make them NPOV, we report what the sources say"; that "NPOV means we don't add OUR POV, reliable sources do not need to be neutral", and that "To try and use NPOV in such a manner is OR and is in complete disagreement with Community standards on what NPOV means." But the above incursion regarding "Those territories were awarded for the use of being a Jewish state by the League of Nations..." is a history lesson that is outside the scope of this discussion - let's not politicize this discussion: this discussion has nothing to do with politics but with whether or not "it is OR to correct a photo caption that incorrectly states the contents of the picture in question". If there is evidence the photo caption came from the title or description of the photo, then that is within scope, but flying off into tangent political or nationalistic issues can mostly serve to flare up emotions and is not conductive to reaching resolution relative to the issue under discussion here. Mercy11 (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

it is not up to us to change the caption to be "neutral" or be less sympathetic to Israelis - Yes, it is. We can use a photo and add our own caption -indeed, that's what we almost always do on WP. And that is what it should be done here. A photo is a thing, the caption is another thing, we are not required (AFAIK) to use them together. And if we were to use the original caption, it should be clearly put between quotes and indicated as such, e.g. Original caption: "..." --cyclopia^speak! 16:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus

It was proposed by User:Barnabypage, and seconded by User:Irondome, to use "people in an Israeli bomb shelter at Kfar Maimon" for the 1st photo).

I also proposed, and was seconded by User:Barnabypage ("Agreed. I can't see that a caption must be exhaustively descriptive") to use ""people in a bomb shelter at Kibbutz Dan" for the 2nd photo.

Here are some thoughts from the community of participants:

SUPPORTING changes to the 2 photo captions:

• User:TheRedPenOfDoom - "It is a straightforward descriptive statement that anyone can be verified by any educated person that the photos contain more than children."TRPoD
• User:AndyTheGrump - "Clearly, any caption must be NPOV, and not misleading, but beyond that, the exact wording is no more laid down by policy than any other article content."
• User:Someguy1221 - "Irondome's position in this dispute defies common sense. If the image has an adult in it, plainly visible, I see nothing wrong with pointing that out in the caption."
• User:cyclopia - "Irondome, I don't know where you are coming from, but no matter how much I can AGF, your arguments are close to trolling."
• User:Barnabypage - "It doesn't need pointing out whether the photos contain men, women or children. That's pretty self-evident. Can't we just go with "people in an Israeli bomb shelter at Kfar Maimon"? "
• User:Zero0000 - "One might suspect a POV-pushing issue here from the fact that almost all the images in the article except maps are of Israelis, with an emphasis on Israeli civilians."
• User:Pluto2012 - "I agree that reference of children should be removed in the caption."
• User:Sean.hoyland - "It's up to editors to decide how best to reflect the information sources contain and comply with policy/guidelines. "

NOT SUPPORTING:

• User:Irondome - "I would in fact suggest that the POV is in the attitudes of a couple of the editors here. I see no evidence of POV in the photographs or indeed the article. It has been worked over and debated enough. In the period leading up to the outbreak of war there were indeed feverish civil defence measures taken in Israel, and the very real fear of massed air attack by the large force of Egyptian TU4 jet bombers. Lurid threats were indeed made by Arab media against Israel, much of it of a repellent racist nature. I would suggest there are no Arab civilian photos simply because there was no existing photos taken. Any idea that women and children photographed in a bomb shelter is somehow propagandistic, while not taking into account the historical reality on the ground, I find disturbing, somewhat."

NEUTRAL (neither supporting nor not supporting):

• User:Blueboar - "We don't actually know if the man in the first photo is an Israeli, or if the adults in the second photo are Israelis." Since the current captions are supported by the source, I lean towards saying we should keep them. However, I do appreciate the argument that the current caption can come across as biased.

If I misrepresented anyone, please accept my apologies, it was not intentional, and simply move your name to the appropriate column.
Mercy11 (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Third opinion needed for Kirkpatrick Chapel GA review

Could I get a quick third opinion for a GA review at Kirkpatrick Chapel?

Two points that seem potentially OR:

• A published source that appears to the editor to incorrectly summarize a plaque. Unsourced text in question: "Despite DiIonno's article mentioning only the elder Rev. Frelinghuysen, the inscription on the Charter Window states that it was given "In Memory of Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen and his sons Theodorus Frelinghuysen, John Frelinghuysen."
• An editor pointing out that a tradition has likely been maintained to the present day. Unsourced text in question (sources only give number of Rutgers casualties in later conflict, without mentioning the plaques): "It is likely this number has increased as McCormick's tabulation was published before most of the Vietnam War (1961–1975), and the alumni who were killed in action during recent conflicts in the Middle East (2001–present)."

Neither point is particularly major, as you can see, but I'd appreciate a quick opinion from someone more knowledgeable about this policy. Is it okay to let these slide? So far the article seems GA quality otherwise. Thanks in advance, Khazar2 (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Having gotten no response here for a few days, I'll take that as tacit agreement that these sentences aren't a serious issue. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:TheBus (Honolulu)

I have started an RFC at Talk:TheBus (Honolulu) to discuss content that may violate WP:OR. Please feel free to review and discuss the matter on that talk page. Musashi1600 (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Shining (film)

The article on Kubrick's The Shining has a clear OR problem, which I've tagged (and discussed at length). There is a section comparing the film and the novel, and it heavily leans directly on the novel, which is clear OR.

However, there is one fact about the protagonist that is sourced from the commentary on the DVD of the TV mini-series version:

Stephen King has openly stated on the DVD commentary of the 1997 mini-series of The Shining that the character of Jack Torrance was partially autobiographical, as he was struggling with both alcoholism and unprovoked rage toward his family at the time of writing.[84][original research?]

84. ^ DVD of The Shining TV mini-series directed by Mick Garris Studio: Warner Home Video DVD Release Date: January 7, 2003

My impression is that DVD commentary from the author about himself would be considered a primary source, and therefore not verified to WP standards, which would make this OR. MarnetteD (talk · contribs) disagrees.

How do we proceed? -Dovid (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

As long as the source is reliable (as in, not in the Stephen King Quotes section of IMDB), editors aren't including their own interpretations, and no superior secondary source exists, I don't see why a notable comment like the one above should be omitted. There is no ban on primary sources, but they require a different kind of consideration. See WP:PSTS:

A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.

PS: it looks like the alcoholism comment is repeated earlier in the article, citing a secondary source. It might be worth citing both (as many as possible, really, dealing with a BLP and a subject like alcoholism). --Rhododendrites (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside the available secondary source, I should have stated more clearly. Is it a reliable source, gievn that it is by a person about himself. Dovid (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Commonwealth Realms and the United Kingdom

According to Buckingham Palace [13], the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is definitely not a "Commonwealth Realm", or called as such. The whole claims ultimately rests upon a "Wikipedia-fiction" circular proof by a Canadian IP-number address back in the year 2003 [14] with no outside authoritative proof. --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The site mentioned by 212.50.182.151 (talk) actually has a page called "what is a Commonwealth Realm?". It says: A Commonwealth Realm is a country which has The Queen as its Monarch. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI, these remarks are about a recent edit to the article Commonwealth Realm. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The link provided by the IP has a link "What is a Realm." It says, "A Commonwealth Realm is a country which has The Queen as its Monarch. There are 15 Commonwealth Realms in addition to the UK." So yes the site does say that the UK is a Commonwealth Realm. TFD (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of 2 scholars

The No Original Research policy "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." This notice concerns several sentences in the New Deal subarticle that while citing a reliable secondary source, directly contradict the findings of two scholars.

The current passage in the article is on similarities and differences between the New Deal and National Socialism's economic programs. The two scholars are Kiran Klaus Patel and John Garraty. The article claims that their findings as follows that the depression "led to a limited degree of convergence" in economic and social policy. (I do not quote the full paragraph since it repeats Patel's phrasing without quotation marks. This may violate close paraphrasing and substantial similarity practices.)

Near the top of page 5 of Patel's book, he starts a paragraph on the politics of the New Deal and National Socialism by saying “Needless to say, the political responses to the crises that emerged in Germany and the United States were different." Patel goes on to write:

"In an attempt to achieve that goal [overcoming high unemployment) both nations subsequently employed what were often strikingly similar instruments of economic and social policy; on this level, the crisis led to a limited degree of convergence. The most important cause "behind these similarities" was the growth of state interventionism, since both societies, in the face of a catastrophic situation, no longer counted on the power of the market to heal itself.”

I emphasized the key phrases that were omitted. By omitting the underlined phrases, the article suggests that the author found only a "limited degree of convergence" in economic policies when the author found "strikingly similar" policies in that area. The limited convergence was due to political differences between the New Deal and National Socialism, meaning that the New Deal was not at all fascist.

John Garraty's findings are also directly contradicted by the article. Garraty's article is available here. Like Patel, Garraty says that “in totality” the New Deal and National Socialism were “fundamentally different.” On page 908 of Garraty’s article, he writes that the New Deal and National Socialism couldn’t have been “more antithetical” politically On economics, they “displayed striking similarities.” The similarities in economics were caused by similar problems. The Wikipedia New Deal article completely misrepresents Garraty's views on economic similarities.

At the New Deal talk page the editor of the passage says that he deliberately removed the relevant material because he didn't want to take material "out of context" and confuse readers into thinking the New Deal was fascist. It actually confuses readers to let them think that there not "striking" similarities in economic policies. It is also misleading on the context. On page 4 of the book Patel writes “there was a whole series of similar initiatives in social, cultural, and economic policies in Nazi Germany and under the New Deal.” The similarities provided the “larger background” of his book.

In other words, the similarities between the New Deal and National Socialism were the basis for Patel's book and Garraty's article. The article gives the exact opposite impression. Quotations must "be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful to avoid misrepresentation of the argument in the source."

I am sorry for the length, but the passage violate No Original Research policy as well as Verifiability policy since it fails verification. Verifiability policy states "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." The quoted and paraphrased material directly contradicts the source. I must disclose two items: Early last August I was blocked for edit warring in early August. While I was right on the facts I am now taking a different approach. I may also submit other notices possibly concerning OR, NPOV, and fringe theory. This article subsection has many problems.

I propose the following summary based on Patel and Garraty:

"Garraty and Patel found that overall Nazi Germany and the New Deal had little in common. This was because of vast political differences. However, both authors found “striking” similarities in economic policies due to the need to handle similar problems. Patel also identified a worldwide growth of government intervention in the economy as another reason for the similarities."

In summary, the passages in question violate two policies: No Original Research and Verifiability. Thank you for your consideration. LesLein (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

After reading LesLeins lengthy post I get the impression that he accuses me of misrepresenting Patel and Garraty but I still don´t get why.

Anyway: User:LesLein tries to take you for a fool by claiming that "The current passage in the article is on similarities and differences between the New Deal and National Socialism's economic programs." The passage is called New_Deal#Charges_of_fascism and this is what it´s about.

User:LesLein unintentionally may have forgotten to mention that the question has already been raised at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_35#Charges_of_fascism_and_charges_of_communism. There he said that "Since Goldberg is so controversial at Wikipedia and elsewhere, I only use his book to find other sources." His intention is to present Goldbergs Opinion piece about some "liberal fascism" but is aware that the book "Liberal Fascism" does not meet Wikipedia:HISTRS. Now he tries to push material out of context in a way that it sounds like FDR is seen as some kind of fascist by notable historians. It is just that no notable historians ever claimed that.

As I already said to LesLein: If you whant to say that nowadays scholars think that FDR´s economic and social policy was fascist show us a reliable source which says exactly that. If not we will find an appropriate article where a limited convergance between Europe and the US can be presented without making an argumentum ad hitlerum.

Several users have already complained about LesLeins edits in New Deal for these reasons: Smacks of POV, "I hate America" wrote Kennan at this point--he had lost faith in democracy and America at this point says Gaddis (2011) p 100, the first quote sounds ominous; but read the whole text & see FDR was denying he was acting too slowly; the second quote is falsified--Ickes never said it (Goldberg got it wrong), The Swope was not part of the new deal – this background information belongs in the NIRA article, No, there is no Talk page consensus for linking FDR to Hitler, and this article is about the New Deal, not Wilson's programs, drop pov claims; FDR and Mussolini did not have a personal relationship, change 1 is unnecessary, change 2 doesn't completely make sense, change 3 needs a better source at least - just the title sets my BS detector off already, One problem with using primary sources is you can except them to make them sound diabolocal...""He said that what we are doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany. But we are doing them in an orderly way." now that means he is communist? fascist? opening death camps? killing Jews? killing kulaks? starving millions? jailing opponents? setting up a secret police? gigantic increase in military spending? shutting down churches? killing priests? building roads and highways? deficit spending? jailing political opponents? sending spies around the world???? By not explaining the context the quote is a deliberate device to make readers suspicious of FDR's motives., the problem with the actual Ickes quote is that it does not say anything about the new deal. Some people will read it to say that Roosevelt imprisoned or killed millions of people as Stalin and Hitler did in their countries. The 2nd Ickes quote (" Ickes warned Roosevelt that there was an increasing tendency by the public “to unconsciously group four names, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Roosevelt.") is a fake – Ickes never said it. The statement came in a letter to FDR, one of millions he received from private citizens., Goldberg got the source wrong--Ickes is nowhere mentioned. Alan Brinkley (2011). The End Of Reform: New Deal Liberalism in Recession and War ***click to read. p. 39. As for the first quote--it's a paraphrase and Ickes simply does not tell what FDR was talking about. Mentioning it is forbidden OR -- it involves contested interpretation not based on any reliable secondary source. Mentioning it is a rhetorical device that confuses our readers, suggesting FDR's atrocities on the order of Stalin & Hitler. As for Mussolini, there was one New Dealer (Johnson) who had a favorable view and he was fired for it. As Diggins says, "Hugh Johnson notwithstanding, the published writings of the Brain Trusters reveal no evidence of the influence of Italian Fascism." Diggins goes on to say there was zero influence of Mussolini on FDR. William Edward Leuchtenburg (2001). In the Shadow of FDR: From Harry Truman to George W. Bush ***click to read. p. 221., The article will be used by high school kids who know very little about the New Deal but have heard plenty about Hitler's atrocities. "Any intelligent layman" will rwalize he's being fooled by the linking of FDR and Hitler but the kids won't. Again the Ickes quote (the genuine one) tells the informed reader zero--what program was FDR referring to??-- but will hint to the poor student that FDR admitted actions similar to Hitler., why can't you call FDR a dictator here -- because the RS strongly disagree. (Cooke wrote that passage when he was in his 90s and he garbled it completely. suggesting FDR was just like Hitler is likewise a no-no., re attacks on FDR try "Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt" article, yes = primary sources. Hoover wrote at length and there is no mistaking what he meant: fascism = control of government by big business. (That is what Hoover meant by fascism but that never happened under Hitler or Mussolini.) FDR was talking to Ickes about XYZ, but Ickes never tells us what XYZ was. No historian has tried to guess XYZ -- there are simply no clues. The Ickes quote is used by enemies of FDR to trick people into linking FDR with Hitler's atrocities., I agree with Rjensen here. Might I also add that you seem to be trying to push a WP:POV here in an obvious manner. Using words like 'dictator' and attempting to link FDR to Hitler is definitely WP:FRINGE. --Pass3456 (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Patel and Garraty both said that the New Deal and National Socialism had "striking" similarities in economic policies. Pass3456 wrote in the article that "there was a "limited degree of convergence" between the two in economics. That is the exact opposite of what Garraty and Patel wrote. It is always wrong to do this. Pass3456 identifies no objection to my proposed revision. Encyclopedias are supposed to be factually reliable.

In another paragraph edited by Pass3456 in the New Deal article, Pass3456 wrote "After 1945 only few observers continued to see similarities. Later on some scholars such as Kiran Klaus Patel, Heinrich August Winkler and John Garraty came to the conclusion that comparisons of the alternative systems don´t have to end in an apology for Nazism since comparisons rely on the examination of both similarities and differences." Pass3456 thinks it is okay to address similarities and differences when it advances the right POV. Incidentally, Patel wrote that interest in comparisons revived in the early 1970s. Another scholar (James Q. Whitman) said that by the late 1980s it was "almost routine" for New Deal scholars to identify similarities. Pass3456 always removes this materials.

Question for Pass3456: If similarities are not relevant to the subarticle, why do you make such an effort to downplay them? Why not just provide the full quotation from Patel and let readers decide for themselves?

If editors go to page 46 of this book they will see that the "charges of fascism" Roosevelt responded to were warnings and "cautionary comparisons" to fascism, communism, and national socialism. That is more evidence that similarities and differences are relevant. Currently the article cites one serious person, a libertarian, who said that one important agency, the National Recovery Administration, was fascist. "Charges of fascism" were originated on May 1, 1933 by the American Communist Party." They were under Stalin's control back then and called everything they disliked fascist.

I am unaware of any Wikipedia finding that Goldberg is unreliable. If there is one, Pass3456 should provide it. The link tends to show otherwise. My notice does not mention him at all. I haven't used him as a source since at least March. I don't know why Pass3456 is so obsessed with Goldberg. I suspect he is trying to change the subject. I never said the New Deal was fascist (I said in the New Deal article and in the above notice that the New Deal wasn't fascist.); I don't need to find an article to support a claim I never made. I have found plenty of scholars who identified similarities, including Garraty, Dan P. Waterman, Stanley Payne, and Wolfgang Schivelbusch. None of them say the New Deal was fascist. Pass3456 always deletes citations to their material when it mentions similarities. He also removes material from FDR himself stating that some New Deal elements were somewhat based on fascism and communism. Pass3456 never explained why Roosevelt would lie about this.

Another question for Pass3456: Can you quote a passage from Garraty indicating that there was only a limited degree of economic convergence? He said the opposite. He said that the two governments were antithetical politically and overall had little in common.

Contrary to what Pass3456 writes, no noticeboard supported him on his characterization of Patel's and Garraty's views. He doesn't mention a later discussion regarding fringe theories at the Admin Noticeboard (I can't get the link to work; see archive 789). No one but a user who originated the fringe theory nonsense agreed with Pass3456. That editor was reduced to a personal attack on me ("a writer with lots of time and little life") for which he was rebuked. One user said "The parallels and explicit links between the New Deal and Mussolini's fascism are well-known and therefore not fringe. We have another page which comments on this extensively — the New Deal and corporatism. Pass3456 seems disingenuous because he has edited that long-standing page while User:LesLein has not. This therefore looks like a case of WP:OWN — an incumbent trying to defend his turf against a newcomer." Another editor disagreed on ownership and said it was a liberal/conservate dispute. Indeed it is.

Pass3456 provides quite a few links, none related to the notice I submitted here. I can't respond in detail, but want to note a few:

"I hate America" wrote Kennan at this point--he had lost faith in democracy and America at this point says Gaddis (2011) p 100]"; and

"the first quote sounds ominous; but read the whole text & see FDR was denying he was acting too slowly" (This was on a quote from Harold Ickes diary paraphrasing FDR's statement that the New Deal was somewhat based on what Germany and Russia were doing, a statement that appears in both primary and multiple secondary sources).

Another question for Pass3456: Have you personnaly checked the accuracy of those claims? My guess is that you haven't, since they are both false.

Again I apologize for the length, but the vast majority of Pass3456's response barely addresses my notice and is mostly an attack on me. I feel obliged to respond to the extraneous stuff. I think that it is revealing that Pass3456 ignores my statement that the paraphrased material often is taken verbatim from Patel's book. Pass3456 doesn't provide any objection to my proposed wording. It is much more accurate than the current text, and provides more legal protection. LesLein (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

LesLein`s various "interpretations" have been rejected by various authors including User:Rjensen (see: Talk:New_Deal#Charges_of_fascism et. alt). I´m not going through all the details unless some one shows interest in it.

LesLein´s "interpretations" have been unanimously rejcted at the Fringe_theories Noticeboard. Finally he has been blocked for 48 hours for his activities in New Deal [15].

In accordance with other users I consider LesLein´s attempts partly as a false narration of primary sources and partly as an out of context Wikipedia:SYN#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position.

For example: Kiran Klaus Patel wrote, that the pionieers (Heinrich August Winkler and John Garraty) of cross-system comparisons (american democracy <-> Nazi dictatorship) intended to research the ultimate factors for democracy and dictatorship. In other words the comparisons were made to find out where it went wrong in Germany. p. 16 (German), p. 6 (English) Patel says that unlike some authors of the 1930s modern day historians don´t make New_Deal#Charges_of_fascism. LesLein´s short-term objective is to take a part of a sentence that Patel and Garraty wrote in their books out of its context (cross-system comparison) and include it in the section New_Deal#Charges_of_fascism. This would alter the message to some "there was no dictatorship but (liberal) economic fascism" (that is the message LesLein wants to create). Patel illustrates in his book why there is nothing to be suspicious about the New Deal. He explains for example that the idea of the labor service was developed first in Bulgaria, Switzerland, Sweden and Great Britain (so it was nothing fascist at all). Later on Hitler created a labor service in Germany and FDR created a labor service in the US to deal with the unemployed (again nothing fascist). Patel explains that in detail there were different approaches that reflected the different nature of the two systems.

Summary: Patel´s, Winkler´s and Garraty´s intention is to illustrate where it went wrong in Germany, they are not saying that there was something in the New Deal to be suspicious about. --Pass3456 (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't provide interpretations, just facts. If Pass3456 was right he or she would be willing to present unpleasant facts and let them see for themselves. That is why Pass3456 can't respond in detail or answer my questions. Again he tries to dodge the subject.

Pass3456 again omits the admin noticeboard (789 in archives) on his fringe theory. Only one user there supported Pass3456, and that was with nothing but a personal attack. The New Deal talk page is dominated by liberals who tolerate no adverse information on this subject. I acknowledged being blocked. It was for an edit completely unrelated to this paragraph. While sticking by the complaint, the editor who made the complaint later had the decency to admitt that some of his or her facts were wrong. One administrator made it clear that the facts didn't matter. The editors wasn't aware that Quotation Guidance requires immediately responding to false statements.

I haven't used original research since last March. That was after the Teahouse initially said it was okay (after another editor there said not to use it I dropped the matter). The only other time I didn't understand OR. Pass3456 is quite willing to tolerate OR in the New Deal article. FDR's speech and Isaiah Berlin's opinion column are original research. They're okay since they fit Pass3456's view.

Pace Pass, Patel only says that there weren't a lot of "in-depth studies." Examples of some scholars who have performed research on the subject and found economic similarities in various degrees are Garraty, James Q. Whitman, Stanley Payne, Dan P. Silverman, and Wolfgang Schivelbusch. Patel says that interest in the subject "revived" in the 1970s, something Pass3456 deletes from the article.

The first sentence of the New Deal article says that it is about the economic program. That makes economic comparisons relevant. Garraty's article is 39 pages. That is more than "part of a sentence." Here's a full sentence from Garraty's article. He says that despite extremely different politics and motivations:

"The two movements nevertheless reacted to the Great Depression in similar ways, distinct from those of other industrial nations."

I am willing to provide the full quote from Patel's book, Pass3456 isn't. Patel never would have written a book over 400 pages if there weren't significant similarities. He says on page 4 that the economic similarities form the "larger background" for his book.

Pass3456 is completely wrong when he writes that the CCC wasn't influenced by the German Labor Service. Page 400 states that in 1938 Roosevelt received a report from his Berlin embassy on the German Labor Service. THe U.S. didn't "copy these measures intheir entirety: instead, the it emphasized the fundamental differences" in political goals. Roosevelt wrote: All of this helps us in planning, even though our methods are of the democratic variety!" Roosevelt's ambassador thanked the Germans for their help. The CCC and the German Labor Service regularly exchanged material. Pass3456 must not have read Patel this far.

Some of the questions (on Kennan and the Ickes diaries) came from Rjensen. His statements were completely false. In the National Recovery Administration article Rjensen expresses no dissatisfaction with the Alistair Cooke quote on a "benevolent dictatorship." For some reason he has a different attitude towards the New Deal article. He once told me on the talk page that "There is an entire article on Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt that has details on charges he was pro-big business, anti-business, fascist, anti-Jewish etc." Pass3456 shares that attitude. The basic attitude is “Why don’t you go somewhere else?”

Some of the questions (on Kennan and the Ickes diaries) came from Rjensen. His statements were completely false. In the National Recovery Administration article Rjensen expresses no dissatisfaction with the Alistair Cooke quote on a "benevolent dictatorship." For some reason he has a different attitude towards the New Deal article. He once told me on the talk page that "There is an entire article on Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt that has details on charges he was pro-big business, anti-business, fascist, anti-Jewish etc." Pass3456 shares that attitude.

If Pass3456 is right, then the following sequence must be true:

1. Garraty writes in his conclusion: "The two movements nevertheless reacted to the Great Depression in similar ways, distinct from those of other industrial nations."

2. Patel uses the Garraty article as a reference.

3. Patel believes that in economic policy there is only a "limited degree of convergence."

How did that happen? LesLein (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Saying there were "striking similarities" is not the same as saying they were "strikingly similar." There are striking similarities between FDR and Reagan too, that does not mean the two men were strikingly similar. In both cases there are striking differences too. Whether or not Goldberg's book is rs, it is best to avoid books by non-scholars that advance fringe views. TFD (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

What is lot of hot air over nothing. The fact that the German government was fascist, does not mean that any initiatives it made were part of what defined the distinctiveness of 'fascism'. That's classic reductio ad Hitlerum. It's normal practice for governments to look at what other countries are doing to get ideas about good and bad innovations. During the war, the Allies learned from German tank tactics. That does not mean that the Allied armies were becoming more 'fascist'. Paul B (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Neither TFD nor Paul B address the issue of original research. They provide no explanation about how the "striking similarities" and other statements in Garraty's article became "limited degree of convergence" attributed to him in the article. They provide more red herrings. I'll never understand the obsession with Goldberg.

The "Charges" of fascism made by FDR's critics (and some supporters) were really "cautionary comparisons" according to the editors' introduction to the fireside chat. Pointing this out is not "reductio ad Hitlerum." Patel is not fringe. Again, no one has ever provided a quote from me saying that the New Deal was fascist. Go see the Admin board.

Talk pages permit OR, so I did a little of my own. See my talk page for the full e-mail exchange between Patel and myself.

Dear xxxxxx,

Many thanks for your interest in my book and for your question. Yes, I mean to say that German and American economic policies shared similarities, and I do find that quite striking. The book is then all about these similarities as well as the crucial differences in how the two countries reacted to the Great Depression.

Best regards,

Kiran Patel

This should settle the matter. Pass3456 engaged in original research.LesLein (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Let us assume that this is really an answer from Prof. Patel, he wrote: "similarities as well as the crucial differences" Do you have an explanation why Patel called the similarities striking but the differences crucial? What does it that mean?

Now look at what TFD wrote: "There are striking similarities between FDR and Reagan too, that does not mean the two men were strikingly similar. In both cases there are striking differences too."

And please read what Paul B wrote: "What a lot of hot air over nothing. The fact that the German government was fascist, does not mean that any initiatives it made were part of what defined the distinctiveness of 'fascism'. That's classic reductio ad Hitlerum. It's normal practice for governments to look at what other countries are doing to get ideas about good and bad innovations. During the war, the Allies learned from German tank tactics. That does not mean that the Allied armies were becoming more 'fascist'." --Pass3456 (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

My proposed edit never said they were exactly the same. "Similarities" does not mean "the same." I think everyone speaking English knows this. Patel's crucial differences refers to the politics. That was the real "limited degree of convergence," not the economics.

Regarding TFD, it wouldn't bother me if the article on Reagan mentioned the similarities between Reagan and Roosevelt. It's no secret that Reagan admired Roosevelt. Go ahead and modify the Reagan and FDR articles. I won't complain. Contrary to Pass3456's calumny, I never edited the article to say that the New Deal was the same as national socialism. I have repeatedly requested a quote indicating otherwise.

Paul Barlow provides an opinion, no new facts. Encyclopedias are supposed to present relevant findings, including those from scholars finding similarities. The similarities are important because the "charges" of fascism were "cautionary comparisons" by conservative critics. That is what the editors's of the fireside chat found. Several prominent academic articles have been written on the similarities. Patel's book uses the similarities as the "larger background" for his books.

This book was written by a German in 1933. Helmut Magers found "surprising similarities" (that word again) between the New Deal and national socialism economics. It has an appendix titled "A Fascist Roosevelt." Magers wrote that while Roosevelt would deny it, "it cannot be denied that his ideas have a resemblance to national socialist ideas."

Roosevelt's ambassador to Berlin, William Dodd, wrote the preface to Magers' book. Roosevelt sent Dodd a letter thanking him for it. Roosevelt sent Magers a note saying that he was reading the book with "great interest."

Since we all agree that the similarities don't mean that Roosevelt was a fascist there is no reason not to mention them. Until it became embarrassing, Roosevelt was often candid about acknowledging interest in economic programs from radical European governments. Why not quote the full sentence from Patel? Why be so fearful?

P.S., Pass3456 still can't explain where he got Garraty's findings from. LesLein (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The summary of all scholarly findings is from: Kiran Klaus Patel, Soldiers of Labor: Labor Service in Nazi Germany and New Deal America, 1933-1945, ISBN 978-0-521-83416-2, Cambridge University Press 2005, p.5, 6 (I already mentioned that twenty times).

The summary of Patel is a scholarly summary therefore a lot more relevant then LesLein´s interpretations.

We have already discussed it at fringe theories noticeboard. I guess that it is Wikipedia:Forum_shopping#FORUMSHOP to discussed that here again. Particularly since LesLein constantly ignores other users input. --Pass3456 (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the scholarly nature of his work, why not quote the full sentence of Patel's ccnclusion ("strikingly similar" in economics)? The next sentence in Patel's book refers to "these similarities" when explaining the main reason for the economic similarities. So there is more evidence that Patel's sentence was referring to economic similarities.

Paul Barlow wrote "It's normal practice for governments to look at what other countries are doing to get ideas about good and bad innovations." Pass3456 agreed with him. So how was it a fringe theory to point this out in the New Deal article? The admin noticeboard consensus was with me. This is the first time I ever went to a noticeboard.

No one has explained how Garraty's findings can be represented as a "limited degree of convergence" in economic policies. It is impossible. No one has explained why the full sentence from Patel shouldn't be quoted. LesLein (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Neither Paul Barlow nor TFD say whether or not Pass3456 is right about Patel and Garraty.

Patel never wrote "strikingly similar" in economics. LesLein pulled that (and a lot of other things) out from where the sun never shines. Futhermore it is impossible to interpret Patel this way. As TFD explained: Saying there were "striking similarities" is not the same as saying they were "strikingly similar." There are striking similarities between FDR and Reagan too, that does not mean the two men were strikingly similar. Patel (?) wrote in the E-Mail "The book is then all about these similarities as well as the crucial differences in how the two countries reacted to the Great Depression." There is no fair and honest way of interpreting this as a claim of "strikingly similar". --Pass3456 (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

State of nature article - opening paragraph

I'm seeking to resolve a dispute with the State of nature article. My work was deleted and the editor who deleted it cited OR as the reason. I don't understand why he is calling this paragraph OR:

The state of Nature, in it's broadest sense is the Universe, which is the natural state that is constituted by the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy. This axiom precedes all the political philosophies and theory built upon it and serves as their foundation.

In fact, not only do I fail to comprehend why it's being called OR, but I feel like this is a strawman argument to prevent the article from being improved. I'm currently working on resolving this issue on the talk page with the other editor. That said, I would like some 3rd party perspectives on if this is truly OR, or if I am correct that it is not and that the other editor is playing politics to protect his 'pet article,' or something to this effect. Christopher Theodore (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It is being called WP:OR because that is what it is. You appear to be attempting to redefine the subject matter of the article. If 'state of nature' meant 'universe' we wouldn't need an article on it - just a redirect to 'universe'. It is amply demonstrated in the article that the term 'state of nature' has a specific meaning within political philosophy. That is what the article is about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The goal is to expand the subject mater of the article due to the limitation of the concept of the state of nature to only perspectives that use that "term" and only that "term." In truth, the concept is much broader then just those few philosophers who used that specific term. Another term for exact same concept referred to by the term "state of nature" is simply "nature." The term "state of nature" doesn't simply mean Universe, but this is the broadest perspective and a fundamental element of the concept. The second paragraph of the lead in my revision is:

In political philosophy and social contract theory, the state of Nature is a term used to describe the theoretical condition that various philosophers imagined preceded the formation of governments. There must have been a time before government, and this presumption begs the questions of: "What was life like before civil society?"; "How did government first emerge from such a starting position?," and; "What are the hypothetical reasons for entering a state of society by establishing a government?" (to illustrate examples of but a few of the many questions that philosophers have asked and striven to answer throughout the ages).

As you can see, there is no intentions to exclude any valid portion of the concept on my part. That is the current opening paragraph, edited slightly due to it not reading smoothly if I kept it word for word.

Further, the paragraph after that presents a scientific perspective, and I was planing on working in an unbiased religious perspective as well, but was derailed by this accusation of OR. My goal was to open with the broader perspective on the concept so that all valid aspects of the concept could be presented. Not just those rooted in Roman philosophy.

In the flow of evolution of the concept, Thomas Aquinas' POV is rooted in a Biblical perspective, I'm researching perspectives rooted in the Vedas and other ancient religious texts, but I doubt the Hindu and Buddhists philosophers used the exact term "state of nature" seeing as how they don't speak English, yet the concept is so ancient, I seriously doubt it's missing from those schools of thought. I am also considering some of the likeliness of tribal perspectives on this topic, tho I suspect I will not find much written works from many of them to cite sources from. Again, the concept would exist, even tho the exact "term" wouldn't.

I still don't get why it's such an issue to lead with fact, then present theory in light of fact... Christopher Theodore (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No. We do not 'expand the subject matter' of articles by engaging in original research. The present topic of the article is made entirely clear. Any 'expansion' would require sources which explicitly state their connection with the present article subject. And as for the supposed 'fact' you are proposing to add to the lede, it is not only WP:OR, but completely and utterly off-topic. The article is not about 'the universe'. It was never intended to be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Kindly forgive me if I seem to be being obtuse, but I am trying to grasp this concept of original research from the Wikipedia POV. I read the policy, but the policy and how it is applied are not always one and the same. Also, by "expanding the subject matter," it was intended to convey the idea that the concept is being expanded to it's true meaning, not expanded beyond the scope of the concept (did you intend to twist my meaning, or did you just fail to comprehend? Perhaps I failed to be clear enough.). Anyways,

• Are the definition of the words in a "term" or "phrase" not considered a part of the concept of authoritative sources supporting the concept? Is a recognize authoritative dictionary like Websters not considered a primary source in the comprehension of any subject matter (not necessarily at Wikipedia, but generally)? Is this really the policy or simply an interpretation of it by a few members? If definitions are actually part of the concept of authoritative sources, are there times when they are not?

• The current "subject matter" is suppressing information integral to the concept due to a limited or false definition. You can not reconstruct the base concept, as it is being currently presented, with the definitions of the words in the "term." Will people now turn to Wiktionary to redefine the words to fit this limited/new/false definition of a much broader concept? Is this happening with other articles? It's certainly been done with the word lead en.wiktionary.org - lede. :-D

• Is in not imperative to someone new to the subject matter to grasp first, that the state of nature is Nature (another synonym for Universe), before the more complex subject matter of abstract political theory is introduced? This article is not just for collage students... If 1+1+1+1=4 is true, is 2*2=4 less true? Do we now teach multiplication before addition?

• Is this original interpretation of the words composing the term referring to a concept not against policy? Can you cite a source supporting the position that the "state of nature" is not the Universe?

• Is the "state of nature" really a hypothetical thing like the lead currently says? Does it become one simply because a famous philosopher says it is? If we have a dog and call the tail a "leg," how many legs does the dog now have? 4, just because we call the tail a leg doesn't make it one.

• Is natural law not the lex non scripta of the state of Nature? If we call natural law, the "Law of Nature" does it become a new and different thing?

• If, in the middle of the night I say, "The sun is shining. This is a fact," and then point to the moon as evidence, would you press for more evidence and require some 3rd party publication to support something so obvious? If I must, I suppose I will have to wait for it to dawn upon you.

• Does the statement of the fact that the state of nature is the universe even require research (original or otherwise)?

Christopher Theodore (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Please focus any further discussion on the articles Talk page, thanks. :-) Christopher Theodore (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Since I'm reading it here I'll reply here. The article is about a "concept in moral and political philosophy used in religion, social contract theories and international law to denote the hypothetical conditions of what the lives of people might have been like before societies came into existence." It is not about the universe. You are using the phrase to describe something that the article isn't discussing. Read WP:LEAD as well.

Not only that, but you are continuing to add original research - your entire addition to the history section is original research. And you don't understand what "begs the questions" means (it means "basing a conclusion on an assumption that is as much in need of proof or demonstration as the conclusion itself" and you shouldn't be adding comments on examples of other philosophical questions. Read WP:LEAD as well. Dougweller (talk) 11:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Raise this new issue on the talk page for discussion if you think it has merit. And reread Begging_the_question#Modern_usage.

My point was never that the article was about the universe. This has been the false presumption made by EVERYONE commenting so far.

WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."

From my POV, what the "state of nature" IS in it's physical sense is an important, integral, and obvious aspect to grasping the CONCEPT in it's philosophical sense.

Another false presumption EVERYONE commenting seems to be making is that I fail to grasp that the article is about the concept in the philosophical sense. I am looking at both. And I persist that both can and should be noted in the lead, and THAT THE REMAINDER OF THE ARTICLE FOCUS ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL SENSE! Since my point is falling on 'deaf ears', I haven't reverted that portion of the article. (take the other criticism to the Talk page if you have an issue, making proper rebuttals in debate is getting me accused of WP:TEDIOUS - this new issue you're raising has nothing to do with the matter at hand.) Christopher Theodore (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

MLS/NASL/USSF D2 club templates

Over the past couple of days, I noticed this user named NYCWikiKid (talk · contribs) has been expanding content on American/Canadian soccer club templates. Now am I saying I have a problem with expanding content on Wikipedia? Absolutely not. But what I'm saying is I'm trying to stay consistent with the current franchise itself and relying on past consensus discussed by the WP:FOOTY members.

These are the templates that are in question...

MLS:

• Template:Seattle Sounders FC
• Template:New England Revolution
• Template:Montreal Impact
• Template:Houston Dynamo
• Template:FC Dallas
• Template:Chivas USA
• Template:Real Salt Lake
• Template:Portland Timbers
• Template:Vancouver Whitecaps
• Template:D.C. United
• Template:Colorado Rapids
• Template:San Jose Earthquakes
• Template:Toronto FC
• Template:Los Angeles Galaxy
• Template:New York Red Bulls
• Template:Philadelphia Union
• Template:Chicago Fire
• Template:Columbus Crew
• Template:Sporting Kansas City

NASL:

• Template:NASL2010
• Template:Atlanta Silverbacks
• Template:Carolina RailHawks
• Template:FC Edmonton
• Template:Fort Lauderdale Strikers
• Template:Indy Eleven
• Template:Jacksonville NASL 2015
• Template:Minnesota United FC
• Template:Oklahoma City NASL 2015
• Template:Ottawa Fury FC
• Template:San Antonio Scorpions
• Template:Tampa Bay Rowdies
• Template:Virginia Cavalry FC

Defunct USSF D2/NASL clubs:

• Template:AC St. Louis
• Template:Crystal Palace Baltimore
• Template:Puerto Rico Islanders

So there are a lot of templates here. Let's talk about the NASL template itself. There's a discussion regarding the 2010 USSF Division 2 Professional League. As we all, the NASL didn't begin play until 2011, but when you look at the NASL template, you can see the 2010 USSF D2 season listed in parenthesis. On the talk page, NYCWikiKid did point out the fact 2010 USSF season isn't the same as the 2011 NASL season and beyond. That means it shouldn't be listed. There was no organization called the NASL in 2010 because they weren't granted to play as a league until 2011. There was an NASL conference in 2010, but that does not count. Therefore, the 2010 USSF D2 season shouldn't be listed in any for under the NASL template.

As for the club templates. For teams like the Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers, Vancouver Whitecaps, San Jose Earthquakes, Tampa Bay Rowdies and Fort Lauderdale Strikers. They all did play in the old NASL, but none of them have to due with the current franchise. When you look at every single template, you can see there are a few that just have unnecessary disambiguation or distinction links by name or what league they played in, and a couple of defunct templates with distinction references from when the club was founded to when they were defunct. As for the clubs that I just listed. Of course we have all the past clubs from the old days linked under the template but none of them have anything to do with the current history. For example Seattle Sounders FC (the current team that began play in 2009), you see links from the past clubs from the old NASL days in the 1970s or so. Links to the USL team from 94-2008, and the Championships that those teams they won. However, they shouldn't be listed under the template because regardless of the fact that they all have the same name, they're all separate franchises and do not apply to the current Sounders franchise. That goes for all the achievements those teams accomplished. I started a discussion on WT:FOOTY and have asked this user to join the discussion, but he's refusing to do so. As far I can tell, I think WikiKid is relying on his own research and ignoring past consensus that WP:FOOTY agreed upon and I think the templates should be fixed because everything was correct prior to all these edits being made. – Michael (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Michael, these edits are against convention/consensus (not an issue for this board) but they do seem to involve an awful lot of original research. GiantSnowman 10:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed as well, these are decidedly OR expansions. NYCWikiKid is conflating distinct modern teams with historical names as a continuation of previous clubs. It is a violation of WP:SYNTH, and against the reality of American sports teams as legal entities. Consensus on this has been clear, but NYCWikiKid has refused to accept that. oknazevad (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Here to address Mikemor92 (Michael)'s concerns, and misleading information. There is a discussion here about the NASL template where three people, including myself, are in favor of the content. Mike is a bit misinformed as he says that there was no NASL organization in 2010. That is completely false, and clearly WP:OR. The present day North American Soccer League was formed in 2009. Their league was recognized as such. They were simply not granted a division status, which is a separate issue altogether. The USL First Division, a league within the United Soccer Leagues, lost its division 2 status. Both the NASL and the USL 1st D agreed under the United States Soccer Federation to participate in the USSF Division 2 Pro League (a temporary one year division 2 league). All the teams under contract from the respective leagues played in the USSF D 2 PL, representing each league. The leagues themselves were much a part of the USSF D2 Pro League as they helped to organize its structure. Therefore, the 2010 season was placed in the template to indicate its historical connection to the NASL. Furthermore, Michael takes a statement of mine completely out of context. Yes, I said that the 2010 and 2011 years were different, only after explaining why in full detail. They are different in that the NASL did not have division status, and the following year it was granted division 2. However, the league was still fully operational, much involved in the USSF D2 PL. Regarding the legacy teams: The New York Cosmos, San Jose Earthquakes, Vancouver Whitecaps, Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers, Fort Lauderdale Strikers, and Tampa Bay Rowdies; along with recent continous clubs such as the Montreal Impact and Ottawa Fury; Michael brings up an opinion referencing franchises and separate teams. Again, Michael, you may be confusing club and team or club and franchise. It is not the same thing. The new templates I have fully updated are about the history of the entire clubs. I ask that all admins reading, that are not currently talking here, to review the work I have done and analyze what has been placed (look at the history logs of each). All information is about the history of the clubs which carry the legacy of all their years of existence. Further, no contrary consensus above has been reached. And I again ask that admins to come in and evaluate the work that some have been persistently reverting and preventing improvement on the site. Thank you. NYCWikiKid (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Charts of recurring actors

There have been some recent article changes made on the stated basis of WP:NOR, so I'm bringing them all here to centralize the discussion. These changes are chart removals, almost exclusively by a particular editor. Unfortunately, the editor in question has edit-warred to keep their removals in and has been rather uncooperative. Rather than focus on their misbehavior, I'd like to get the underlying issue resolved.

A number of articles include charts showing actors who appear in multiple productions by the same director. These are typically sourced from two directions. The fact that there is a pattern of recurring actor use is sourced to a news article that mentions this fact, preventing us from undue synthesis. The actors and their appearances are partially sourced to these articles, and partially to IMDB. According to WP:CALC, it is not original research to do simple calculations, such as counting. Many of these charts have been around for some time now, without controversy. As I see it, these charts add value to these articles and do not have any potential for harm.

Decide for yourself. Here are links to live versions of the charts:

Christopher Guest

Joss Whedon

Quentin Tarantino

I'd like to establish a consensus on what it takes to protect these charts from spurious deletion, preserving the quality of these articles. MilesMoney (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

OP has failed to provide any input on the Quenin Tarantino talk page. "Spurious deletion" is an unneeded and contentious description. – S. Rich (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

OP has discussed it on the Whedon page, which is what sent Bink off deleting charts on the other two. Now that this involves three articles, a centralized location is appropriate. MilesMoney (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, you immediately focused on my "behavior" even though you said in the next sentence you would not do so. I find that hypocritical. It takes two to edit war; you do not have clean hands. My removals involve taking out unreferenced material from BLPs; your reversions are restoring BLP problems.

The focus here at NORN should be on whether unreferenced tables should be allowed in BLPs. The table cells can, of course, be referenced with IMDb listings and such, but each of the tables should be based on an overall source that makes a clear statement about how the filmmaker generally chooses the same actors for his films. This kind of statement is lacking in these three cases which is why I keep saying we have a problems with NOR. In fact, at Talk:Quentin Tarantino I show a reliable source which says that Tarantino does not select from a limited group of actors. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't avoid the topic. Your abominable behavior is why the issue has escalated to the point where we need to discuss it here. You delete notices without comment, you edit-war and leave false edit comments. Your actions are hostile and bizarre, particularly the tenacity in fighting to remove such innocent and informative material.

In any case, your claims are false. For example, in Joss Whedon, we had links to two articles[16][17] indicating his preference for reusing some of the same actors. This has nothing to do with being limited to a limited group of actors; that is a strange and unjustified interpretation that is yours alone. There is no controversy over the fact that all three are known for reusing actors. There is no reasonable negative interpretation that might trigger WP:BLP considerations. There is just your unprincipled objection and your continuing poor behavior. MilesMoney (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet on both points. These "counts" are OR. CALC requires "consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious". (Using "spurious" & "edit war" to describe the edits lacks good faith.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to claim that the result of the calculation is not obvious, feel free to explain how. Otherwise, your endorsement of your friend Bink is noted and appropriately weighed. MilesMoney (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd be cautious about charts of this sort without solid secondary referencing elsewhere. The implication of the title of the section at Joss Whedon, "frequent casting", is that something should be drawn from the pattern shown in the chart; if so, I'd recommend spelling it out in text form "Joss Whedon frequently casts..." and referencing the statement. We also need to be cautious about what gets excluded from a chart; there are many actors who appeared in these films not on the chart, and by choosing not to list them, we run the risk of giving an inaccurate impression of how a particular director chooses their cast. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

In the case of Whedon, the second link I posted includes the following sentence:

"Quite the contrary: he is the gravitational center of the Whedonverse, a galaxy that spins recurring actors and themes through an orbital system of TV shows, films and comic books that all share similar traits: a unique brand of witty dialogue, relatable characters and fantasy/sci-fi mythology."

I believe this is exactly what you requested in terms of establishing the pattern. We can summarize and cite this elsewhere in the body of the article, if that's desirable.

To the best of my knowledge, the charts do not exclude any actors who qualify. If they did, it would be an error I would be glad to fix. MilesMoney (talk) 06:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly no expert on Whedon (!), but as far as I can see source doesn't appear to list any particular actors or directly support the choice of which to present (or exclude) from a chart. Deriving a chart of frequent casting from that alone does feel like OR to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The choice is mechanical. If you look at the chart, there's a hidden comment which reads:

"XXX as per numerous discussions on the talk page, please don't add actors who played less than 3 *roles*"

In short, any actor who's played less than three roles should be omitted, and any actor who's played at least three should be included. To fulfill this, all you need is IMDB and the ability to count to three. There's absolutely no ambiguity or personal judgment involved. MilesMoney (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The judgement that "three" is the significant milestone and constitutes frequent casting, and is what was meant by the source you're quoting, does seem to me a personal judgement. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It's an editorial judgment, and an entirely reasonable one, whose goal is to fairly curtail the size of the chart.

Literally, any actor who appears in two productions is recurring, but raising the bar to three keeps the size manageable while focusing on the actors with a pattern of recurrence, not just a single incidence. Size is also the reason for requiring different roles; it doesn't make sense to count an actor reprising their role in a spin-off or movie version (as with Buffy/Angel and Firefly/Serenity).

What would bother me is if someone arbitrarily decided to exclude a particular actor who met the criteria, or to make an exception to the stated criteria to include someone who doesn't. That would be out of line. But principled editorial judgments are entirely within the role of editors. MilesMoney (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

While this would appear to be a minor issue of contention, it is clearly a violation of original research. You are effectively creating information which has not been reported in this manner. WP:CALC does not save you as this is not a routine calculation of numbers. You have to search through IBDB to get the numbers, ie. synthesis. I must admit that this is interesting, but it is a violation of a core WP policy nonetheless. Arzel (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't believe it is, which is why I'm discussing the issue here. Certainly, none of the reasons for the prohibition against WP:OR actually apply here. MilesMoney (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the relevant criteria for lists have already been compiled at WP:LSC, so this issue is closed. MilesMoney (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:LSC does not cover the issue like you believe it does. Arzel (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Arzel that LSC does not provide the answer for this question. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as neither of you have offered any reasons, I can only disagree with your disagreement. MilesMoney (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Examples of frequent collaborator charts

Wikipedia has at least two excellent examples of the proper way to list frequent collaborators. Take a look at the Feature Article "List of frequent David Lynch collaborators" which has lots of references discussing how Lynch prefers working with a limited group of personnel. There's also the Paul Thomas Anderson#Frequent collaborators section which starts out with an ideal reference—"Anderson himself has created a sort of loose family of collaborators, with many of his actors and crew carrying over from one film to the next."[18] Perfect!

On the other hand, we have the completely unreferenced List of frequent Coen Brothers collaborators and the List of recurring cast members in Stanley Kubrick movies. A poorly referenced example is List of frequent Tim Burton collaborators—all of the references cite individual film appearances. None of the references actually makes the statement that Burton frequently works with the same people. (Also note the unreferenced Tim Burton#Frequent collaborators section.) At Martin Scorsese#Frequent collaborators, the references are slightly better, including some that make the statement that Scorsese likes to work with De Niro, for instance, or he likes to work with DiCaprio. None of the sources makes the overall observation that Scorsese repeatedly works with a limited number of collaborators. More unreferenced tables or lists: Michael Bay#Frequent collaborators, Alfred Hitchcock#Frequent collaborators, Shankar–Ehsaan–Loy#Frequent collaborators, James Wong Howe#Frequent collaborators, Haskell Wexler#Frequent collaborators, Salah Abu Seif#Frequent collaborators, Andrew Davis (director)#Frequent collaborators, Jonathan Chik#Frequent collaborators, Carlos Hernández Vázquez#Frequent collaborators, Richard Isanove#Frequent collaborators, and Tarek El-Telmissany#Frequent collaborators. I would bet that the articles about the lesser known directors have had the "Frequent collaborators" format copied to a degree from the famous directors. We should determine how much of a NOR problem we have with this sort of table, chart or list. Binksternet (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Claimed versus official

So, smart NORN watchers, here's a question: On Sangram Singh, another editor attempted to create a "controversy" section, by combining together info from the person's personal facebook page (where he claimed to have won certain awards), along with official stats from the tournament hosts which did not show Singh winning, to imply a controversy. Now, it's certainly clear to me that calling this discrepancy a "controversy" is pure OR, and we'd need a third party source to actually make that claim.

However, can we even put the two facts simultaneously on his page? That is, can we say in one sentence, "Singh stated that he won award X in year Y.(source to Facebook) However, the official record for the tournament does not list him as a winner." On the one hand, both seem to be relevant biographical facts, and the discrepancy even seems to be relevant, but on the other hand, putting them together like that would seem to violate WP:SYNTH, since it pretty much implies that the subject is lying (or misremembering, or whatever). If we can't line up both facts, how do we decide which of the two to list on the page? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Surely Facebook cannot be considerd to be a reliable source? The official stats can be considered to be a reliable source, so they trump Facebook. My solution to this "puzzle" is simply that Facebook cannot be cited as a source in the article. It is of no relevance to WP if someone lies on their Facebook page. The lie must simply be ignored. Facts about what people claim on their Facebook pages surely have no place in WP (unless reported by a reliable secondary source). Am I right? NZBiota (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Self published sources, including Facebook, can be a reliable source for things about the subject themselves. For example, if a person says on a verified Facebook account, "I as born in New Jersey", that's sufficient to support that information. Claims of winning awards, though, are problematic, as it isn't a "personal" piece of info. So, yes, perhaps just not allowing the facebook claims is sufficient in this case. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:SELFPUB, a self-published source can only be used if "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". Claims to have won an award are clearly self-serving - and accordingly, we won't use the source. If third-party reliable sources were to comment on the discrepancy, it might be worth mentioning, though WP:WEIGHT would still apply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, though, applied consistently, this could perhaps have some odd consequences? If a email verified WP user writes something on their user page, can that be a source for WP articles? Also, going back to the Facebook case, what if they claim things that are neither unduly self-serving, nor exceptional, but simply related to issues that they aren't competent to comment on? I'm not aware of any rule on Facebook (though I don't use it) which limits beyond the obvious abusive/defamatory/indecent limits what someone can say on their Facebook page? NZBiota (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of your first question. As for your second point, if someone isn't competent to comment on something, we aren't going to cite them as a source, regardless of where they make the comments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The relevance was just that a verified WP account user page is really no different to a verified Facebook page, so I was wondering if the same rules apply, that's all? Regarding my second comment, it is not exactly self-evident when someone is or isn't competent to comment on something, and that is why (in theory, anyway) peer reviewed publications are reliable sources, but not blogs, etc. Even the most famous and honoured scientists still have to go through peer review. NZBiota (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Rfc at Villlage Pump (Policy)

Hi, I have listed a policy proposal pertaining to dealing with_Lack_of_references_and_citations_through_Edit_filters at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy).Please do join in to give your valued openions.

Mahitgar (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Family tree

Is this family tree here consider synthesis anymore than Stephen_I_of_Hungary#Family?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Geneologies of Kentucky Governors

I just stumbled across this and am baffled about how it complies with WP:NOR. But it seems to have been stable, across a lot of articles, for a few years and I'm just not WP:BOLD enough to do what I think needs doing. Can I hear the thoughts of other editors?
Here's the explanation.

And here are examples:
Luke_P._Blackburn#Ancestors
Thomas_E._Bramlette#Ancestors
Simon_Bolivar_Buckner#Ancestors
Martha_Layne_Collins#Ancestors
Ernie_Fletcher#Ancestors
J._Proctor_Knott#Ancestors
Preston_Leslie#Ancestors
James_B._McCreary#Ancestors
John_W._Stevenson#Ancestors

Is there something I'm missing that makes these geneologies, which offer no references to secondary sources, approriate to appear on wikipedia pages about Kentucky governors? David in DC (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• In the process of removing all of the Ahnentafels I created for the Kentucky governors. Now it's a non-issue. Spacini (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Original Research Assistance

Hej!

I am looking for help/guidance from experienced scientific editors who can help resolve/guide me on the "No Original Research" requirement -v- the related policy of Neutral point of view. For ex, the NPOV seems to imply some "latitude"

My only question for the present is: Is this better posted here or on the Editor_assistance/Requests? Thank you for your help! 213.66.81.80 (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Here as you are asking if NOR can be relaxed to meet NPOV. I can't see how. You'd have to provide specifics. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Doug! Thank you for your response. My point is when I read WP:OR, I found this under the NPOV section there:

"The prohibition against original research limits the extent to which editors may present their own points of view in articles... But when incorporating research into an article, it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority."

What is meant by the words in bold? (I can get to specifics in due course, but I would prefer someone who has experience of writing scientific articles in the context of known heuristics for a phenomenon -v- a "requirement" on Wikipedia to thereby elucidate the "cause"...)

Kind regrds 213.66.81.80 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This was cross-posted at WP:EAR. I'm pretty sure the question generally relates to energetically modified cement and a disagreement at User talk:213.66.81.80 and evidently deals with patent law to a certain extent. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is but nothing to do with patent law. I am struggling with "need" to provide a "scientific" explanation to the "nth" degree so as to prevent any further defamatory comments arising. This is why I ask for guidance from someone who has expertise in writing scientific articles and is well grounded in (observational) science heuristics. The issues are nuanced and will require a careful consideration because I can do what is being "demanded" (by a user who I suspect has little experience in heuristics) but I am worried in so doing it will contravene the Original Research aspect. I need guidance. If you can help, I would surely appreciate it. Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The bolded words are in the context of an article where there is disagreement amongst scholars or other experts. It means that when citing a source that represents a minority opinion in the scholarly community one is obliged to indicate in the article that it is a minority opinion. It is not a licence for Wikipedia editors to form their own opinions. Opinions must always be attributed, Wikipedia itself never offers an opinion. Furthermore, WP:UNDUE prevents us from paying attention to viewpoints which are well outside the mainstream (lone voices in the wilderness etc). SpinningSpark 18:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay. This sounds perhaps stupid of me because Swedish is my first language. I took the words "in face value" and wondered if the bold words were an oblique reference to being able to add one's own comments. It appears not. If you have experience of writing science articles can you assist on the major aspect I am hoping for guidance? It would be appreciated. Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It may be helpful for you to consider that what we do as Wikipedia editors is find and compile what reliably published sources have said about the subject and then attempt to present all of what has been said in a manner that appropriately represents the current mainstream academic experts' views of the subject. In the area of scientific works and subjects, we need to be careful about how we use individual research papers so that we limit their use as primary sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Then may I ask you for some guidance on your talk page? 213.66.81.80 (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

you could, but asking here will give you much more chance of being answered quickly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting!

"...it is important that editors provide context for this point of view, by indicating how prevalent the position is, and whether it is held by a majority or minority..."

Presumably, one must cite a source for a position being prevalent or minority, or else it would be OR, and open to abuse by editors indicating "minority view" derogatorily to views that they disagree with! NZBiota (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

True dat! See, for example, Rupert Sheldrake. For extra fun, check out the article's talk page. David in DC (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Police state

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the article Police state User:Ghostofnemo added a list of "Features of police states". The list was at first completely uncited and only after an extended discussion at Talk:Police state#New section "Features of police states" did I manage to convince the editor that sources are actually needed for each and every feature on the list. The editor proceeded to add citations from opinion-pieces, political organisations and geographically specific studies to cite a list that makes general claims about all police states.

My view is that in order to have such a list, we will need at least a scholarly study of police states in general which defines the features of a police state. The main problem being that most of the features on the list is not exclusive to police states but can occur in most types of states, making it obvious that the list has been put together on what the particular editor views as being features of police states rather than based on real scholarship on the subject. Googling "Police state" and adding a citation as source for a general claim that a feature is a general characteristic of police states if a columnist just happens to call it a sign of a police state seems to be rather blatant WP:SYNTH violations. And there are certainly a lot of those kind of citations on the list (the mass of citations often being a sign of dubious content in my experience). --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Entirely agree. Sources for a list of characteristics should come from academic studies. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Some of the sources are academic, but most are from "mainstream newspapers", which are also considered reliable sources. There seems to be no dispute about the content, just over the appropriateness of the sources, but the editor who is making this complaint completely deleted the section in question, along with the reliable sources. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

And no, most states THAT AREN'T POLICE STATES do [added 1/11/2013] not "disappear" people, torture them, blacklist dissidents, etc. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And I also believe that being published by a reliable source is the basis of notability and accuracy, not the personal opinions of editors as to their accuracy or notability. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

And the "mass of citations" (which were added BEFORE the latest "no refs" tag was added) is the result of said editor complaining about the references that were provided! Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Mainstream newspapers are reliable sources for news, but this is a political science issue(for my sins, my major at Yale) and they aren't reliable sources for that. As an aside, blacklisting of dissidents has taken place in the US, torture has been used by western democracies - again there are some regrettable instances where it's been used by the US and the UK among other countries. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Most states do torture their citizens by the way, 70%, 112 countries in 2012 according to Amnesty's State of the World 2013. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that is correct. Mainstream news sources are not restricted to supporting only news events. The BBC, for example, publishes many reference articles about countries and issues: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14107241. And this is not rocket science. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Check out this article. It has "police state" in the title, and goes on to enumerate why it considers Vietnam a police state: http://www.ibtimes.com/vietnam-police-state-where-one-six-works-security-forces-1401629 Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that the first line of this section says, "Features of a police state include:" not "any state that does any of these is a police state". But the more of these a state is guilty of, the more likely it is a police state. States that torture people routinely would probably be categorized as police states. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, the definition of "original research" means it's unsourced, and this section is clearly sourced. I agree the quality of the sourcing could be better, but the current version of this section is clearly not original research as the numerous references demonstrate. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Your mentioning of the Vietnam article just shows the root of the problem. You are using a source on a specific country or instance, in this case Vietnam, and apply it to cite general claims about police states in general. That is classic WP:SYNTH, since it is only your own interpretation that a specific case study can extrapolated to features of police states in general. And yes, original research means that you are making claims not supported by sources. In this case you are making your own interpretations that are not supported by the given sources cited. You can throw on as many sources as you want, but as long as none of them supports the claims made then it is indeed original research. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I question your definition of synthesis. Here's what the WP:SYN says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[8] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." In the case of this section, there is no C. We have many sources discussing police states and noting why they are police states, and I am noting what these sources mention as features of police states. I'm not jumping to the conclusion that any particular state C is therefore a police state, or stating a conclusion C such as "all states are police states". Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That is not what I have been saying either. You are making the conclusion that because a particular instance of something is happening in a country that is being termed a police state means that it is a general feature of police states. You are basically doing your own research, finding features and making general claims about the universality of these features. This is the problem, and you have still to come up with a reasonable explanation for why that should be allowed as per WP:OR and especially WP:SYNTH (which you quote above. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is one of the news articles I'm using as a source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment The top of the article reads, "From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms." And then 10 steps are listed. How is this OR? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Years and years later, and you're still attempting the same SYNTH/OR violations as you were on both Sea Shepherd and 9/11 related articles. Ghostofnemo, I don't understand why you don't understand this. You need to only state exactly what sources say. If a source talks about why Vietnam is a police state, you simply cannot use that as a source to verify why Country X or Countries In General are police states. This is absolutely basic, fundamental Wikipedia policy. And, on the more general issue of sources, just because a source is RS for one thing (news) does not mean it's reliable for something else (political science). As was already mentioned. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That Guardian "article" is an opinion piece (it even has the word "comment" in the link), and thus not usable as a reliable source for anything but the opinions of Naomi Wolf. Again this is very basic stuff and as pointed out by Qwyrxian, due to the several previous times your edits has been reported on this board, should be something you had understood by now. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever edited the Sea Shepherd article. Can you site the policy on this? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC) I do recall a discussion in which people were arguing that you can't mention in an article about Brand X cigarettes that the Surgeon General has warned that cigarettes are harmful to your health and increase your risk of cancer, because the Surgeon General does not mention Brand X by name. That, of course, is ridiculous. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Ah, here it is. It appears that after a lengthy discussion no resolution was ever reached: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_52#Questionable_interpretations_of_SYNTH Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Resolution was achieved, you simply refused to accept it...and, apparently, still do. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting information, Qwyrxian. Based on the long history of OR and SYNTH-violations carried out by Ghostofnemo it seems there is some possible WP:COMPETENCE or even WP:NOTHERE issues with this editor. Perhaps this should be taken further to ANI as these issues seems to go far beyond this single article? --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you see a resolution to that discussion? Where? So it's ok to delete an entire section of reliably sourced material from articles, but disruptive to constructively contribute by trying to improve the article? I would think the person who was doing the mass deletion would be the one who needed a warning. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Someone who was sincerely concerned about the quality of the sources would find better ones, one would think, instead of deleting the entire section. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:BURDEN it is entirely up to you to support the information you add to articles with acceptable citations. As it is quite clear from the process of how you added this list (you first added a bunch of items that you personally thought was features, gradually adding more as you went along, then when asked for citations you began roaming the net for odds and ends that contained just the slightest mention of some of the terms you made up) that the list does not represent anything comparable to what can be found in scholarly sources, the best solution is to delete the list and if such a list is found to be needed in the future, then start over and make one based on actual sources. As it is quite clear that your are in the minority of one here, I have gone ahead and deleted the list from the article. Please be aware that if such a list is to be introduced again, then it has to be based on reliable sources and not factual yardsticks (ie WP:TRUTH). --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The editor above has claimed on the article talk page that a . Is the head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and

fair elections?consensus has been reached on this page to delete this entire section and all the provided reliable sources from the article. Here is the diff of the deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_state&diff=582390708&oldid=580697927 Does such a consensus exist? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC) BTW, when an editor is asked to provide a reliable source for an edit, is it a bad thing to supply the requested sources? You seem to be implying this. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Everyone to voice an opinion disagrees with you, including myself just now. There is a "consensus of everyone but nemo", and that is good enough. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

So can we have a policy position as to why the reliable sources I've provided are not acceptable? The editor who is challenging this edit has claimed that only scholarly sources are acceptable in this situation. Is this indeed Wikipedia policy? And has it been decided that this entire section is actually original research, despite the scads of RS provided? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Well, it appears a small portion of the section was allowed to remain. Why isn't this a reliable source for noting the attributes of police states? http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2013/checklist-questions-and-guidelines Is it original research to change "Is the head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections?" into "- absence of free and fair elections" or is that an allowable paraphrase? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT once more. I didn't claim that only scholarly sources were acceptable, but that they would probably be the only ones that contained a comprehensive enough study of police states that would include a list of features suitable for the article. My objection was to your piecing together random sources of single examples to create your list, often only because the term "police state" was used in passing, thus making the entire list of features original research. Most of the sources you used weren't even acceptable as reliable sources for any general claim as they were opinion pieces and editorials. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm not conceding that my original edit was OR, but as an alternative approach I've taken the questions Freedom House uses to determine how free a society is, and listed them in the article as factors for evaluating the freedom of a society: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state#Features_of_police_states Is this OR? Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the source isn't about police states in particular. It is a list of questions used in the research for their study of the degrees of freedom in nations of the world. To infer that those questions are particularly describing the features of police states is your own personal opinion, and thus OR. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo, is it your goal here to describe on Wikipedia what reliable sources state to be the hallmarks of a police state, or what you personally think are the hallmarks of a police state? Someguy1221 (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is the latest attempt at resolution, which has already been deleted. Note how the edit is a direct paraphrase of the supplied reliable source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_state&diff=582794914&oldid=582788773 Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC) This is the reliable source the edit is based on: http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2013/checklist-questions-and-guidelines Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That checklist is for measuring the "freedom" of a given country. It is only by your own personal analysis that this is a checklist for determining whether something is a police state. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

And what do we call an unfree state, a state where civil liberties are restricted, a state where citizens live in fear of speaking out? An "unfree state" (the term used by the RS) is just a euphemism for a police state. We can call them authoritarian regimes, despotisms, dictatorships, but they are all words used to describe states where the citizens are not free. Note that in the article there is a map from this same RS (created using the checklist I'm using as an RS) showing states that are "free" and states that are "unfree". According to your logic, since they don't use the term "police state" this shouldn't be in the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I hope the above comment by Ghostofnemo speaks for itself regarding the fact that this editor, after years on Wikipedia, and after being involved in countless similar incidents as this one being informed of the same policies and issues (their userpage is quite revealing in that regard), either is completely incapable of understanding the most basic policies of this site or are deliberately ignoring them in the vain attempt that doing so will help them in their attempt at introducing whatever POV it is that they adhere to. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Nemo, the problem has never been the mention of the press freedom index on an article about police states, but your insistence that its authors are describing police states, despite their never having said as much. As mentioned previously, there is no shortage of sources that explicitly discuss police states. Go find them. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The last version (now deleted) does not claim to be "describing police states". It claims to be a list of indicators used to determine how free or unfree a state is. Unfree states are clearly another term for police states. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you don't recognise that last part of your statement as being the very cause of the OR-problem, after all this time and all those similar past incidents that has brought you to this board, just boggles the mind. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, so let's say you are quoting a reliable source that says "Mr. X has been accused in the press of cheating on his wife." Is it original research to paraphrase that by saying, "Some news media have made allegations that Mr. X has been unfaithful to his spouse"? Police state=unfree state, just as press=news media, cheat=unfaithful, accusation=allegation, wife=spouse (in this context). Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You actually got that hypothetical horribly wrong. The attribution should be to the accuser, not the news site that is reporting the accusation. And in no circumstance should you weasel out of saying who reported it like that. That may be besides the point, but perhaps it provides some insight to your understanding of policy. Either way, what everyone here disagrees with you on is that very claim that "police state" is a synonym of whatever phrases are used in the sources you are trying to cite. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, of course this line would be followed by several refs of press articles which make this accusation. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Freedom House, a respected human rights organization (my reliable source), is using the term "unfree states" because to call a state a "police state" is like calling an authoritarian leader a "despot" or "dictator". They are trying to be fair and unbiased, and "police state" is a loaded term. That's why they are using "unfree state" instead. I only have a bachelor's degree in politics, so I'm not an authority on this subject, but this is very basic material for people in that field. I suggest we get a request for comment WP:Rfc because this material seems to be beyond the grasp of some of the editors who are participating in this discussion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm so glad we have you to read the minds of Freedom House's writers. But if you want to continue to beat this dead horse, go ahead. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have to read anyone's mind - it's called English. Freedom House is defining unfree states as states "where basic political rights are absent, and basic civil liberties are widely and systematically denied." Which is also the definition of a police state. I suggest the Rfc say: "Is this edit a legitimate paraphrase of a reliable source, or is it original research?" and include the diff of the deleted edit and the url of the source it's based on. And I suggest it be posted at the "Politics, government, and law" page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

You can forumshop all you want. It doesn't change the fact that your edits to the article constitute original research. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming good faith. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem. And thank you for the interesting epic on the life and times of Ghostofnemo on your userpage. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I see your main user page is on the Danish Wikipedia. Are you a native speaker of English? That might explain why you seem to be confused about political terminology in English. Do you have any background in politics, government or law? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to point out where I "seem to be confused about political terminology in English". After all I have shown you the courtesy of pointing out, page after page, where you reveal considerable deficiency in the knowledge of basic Wikipedia policies. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem unable to understand that when Freedom House refers to a state as an "unfree state" that this is synonymous with calling it a "police state". Are you a native speaker of English? And do you have any background whatsoever in this field? Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Can a single editor close a discussion because he or she personally feels it's not constructive? And don't my questions deserve answers? Are they entirely immaterial to this discussion? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Short answer: Yes.

Long Answer: It depends on who is closing it, and why. We normally don't "close" noticeboard discussions (instead, we allow them to simply die out because no one has anything further to say) ... however, when it is clear that one (or both) sides in the discussion are being combative, and engaging in disruptive, WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behavior, then "closing" can be appropriate.

Ideally the "closer" should be someone who has not participated in the dispute. Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Paris is the capital of France" etc.

I would like the help of 3rd party editors to resolve an emerging issue with "attributable content" regarding the following and similar examples. The struck through text is the stable article text which I believe is attributable content of the vanilla "Paris is the capital of France" variety, and if disputed a tag and a little bit of effort from any editor questioning it is less disruptive than simple deleting.

Brugge/Bruges (English still uses French name, though in Dutch-speaking area)

The reason why this is in my view falls into WP:OR "Paris is the capital of France" level general knowledge is because it is "flemish+speaking"&hl= easily attributable without having to WP:POINTedly fill the page with standard Tourist Guide footnotes.

The particular case is here where User:Dohn joe is arguing that statements are WP:OR at the same time as deleting sources such as (1) Lonely Planet Turkey (2) Jordan, Adamič, and Woodman Exonyms and the International Standardisation of Geographical Names: Approaches towards the Resolution of an Apparent Contradiction Vienna 2007 and (3) Jean-Pierre Duteil Alexandre de Rhodes' Histoire du royaume du Tonkin 1999 which supported 3 of the statements the editor has deleted claiming "WP:OR." Since this series of deletions has been justified with WP:OR I defer to experienced editors in this subject (hopefully those who contributed to the current shape of the guideline) to comment. I do not intend to contribute to the discussion. I also do not intend to be frogmarched to adding sources for "English still uses French name, though in Dutch-speaking area" statements known to every schoolboy. Footnote refs should be reserved for less clear statements such as to which the (3) deleted sources above were attached. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate this editor also addressing such claims as

• Ngũ Hành Sơn : Marble Mountains (Vietnamese name more accurately is "Five elements mountains")
• Plzeň : Pilsen (German name no longer used in English)
• Leuven/Louvain : Louvain (old - English used to use French name, though in Dutch-speaking area)

I removed a number of similar claims of terms being "old-fashioned", "obsolete", or of the form "English uses Portuguese name", none of which were cited - and none of which I learned as a schoolboy. As for the refs 1) and 2) cited above, I have explained to In ictu why they were non-sequiturs to the exonym status of Istanbul. If an experienced editor here has any advice, I am quite open to it, however. Dohn joe (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, as I said: "I do not intend to contribute to the discussion." I would suggest to other editors that the whole edit and justification of the edit by WP:OR be considered in relation to (a) the whole edit, (b) the whole guideline. Good luck. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The edit is not in the least helpful. Where there is something to say about the place name, that should be in the etymology section, not immediately after the article title. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite catch your drift. Would you mind rephrasing your answer? I can't tell if you are in favor of the parenthetical comments or not. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted, for the 3rd time, Dohn joe's removal of stable article content (more lines of the Brugge/Bruges (English still uses French name, though in Dutch-speaking area) etc. type and sources). The issue having been brought to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard the User should at least give regulars here a chance to comment before deleting stable and uncontroversial content a 4th time. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support position of In ictu oculi. Ideally citations should be provided, but deletion of unsourced items is not appropriate per "Paris". Scolaire (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Surely all these lists are some sort of breach of WP:NOT in the first place. Formerip (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)